Appeal No. 1997-3913
Application No. 07/860,386
commensurate in scope with the invention of claim 1, or fail
to provide a persuasive reason why the claim does not read on
Burger when given its broadest reasonable interpretation as
proposed by the examiner. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, the examiner looks to the
stack frame of Burger as disclosing the means for selecting
one of said plurality of parameters [answer, page 5].
Appellants argue that this is a remapping using a stack frame
and not a selection as claimed, but appellants offer no
explanation for this position [reply brief, page 7]. We agree
with the examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of claim 2 is met by the processing of parameters in Burger’s
stack frame.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the examiner
identifies the thread ID in Burger as the further parameter of
claim 3 and threads #1 56 and #2 58 as the first and second
parameters of claim 4 [answer, page 5]. Appellants argue that
the examiner’s use of “equivalent” admits lack of anticipation
[reply brief, page 7]. We do not agree. The examiner uses
equivalent in the sense that the further parameter reads on
the thread ID and the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007