Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
Dieter and the claimed subject matter measure different
things and have different intended users, as argued by
Appellant (Br10-11), this argument is persuasive only to the
extent that the differences are found in the claim language.
Claims 1, 2, and 16
In claim 1, the step of "recording instantaneous
information units relating to [the] program being executed"
is read on recording an "event" and a time stamp of the
event in Dieter. An "event" is defined as "a special
condition that occurs during normal system activity and that
can be made visible to the TMP [test and measurement
processor]" (page 199, left col.) and broadly "relates" to
the program being executed. Thus, we find the recording
limitation to be taught by Dieter.
The step of "recording ... and/or the information
processing operation context" is optional as indicated by
the term "and/or" and need not be addressed.
The step of "optionally processing certain of said
information units processed by pre-established analysis
procedures" is optional and need not be addressed. However,
we agree with the Examiner that this limitation broadly
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007