Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
The Examiner finds that Wade disclose everything in
claim 1 except for loading an address table and that this
feature is taught by Dieter (EA7-8).
Appellant argues (Br18-19) that Dieter does not
disclose the claimed step of loading "an address of a code
of a function being executed and an address of the contents
of an instantaneous context associated with the function."
We agree with Appellant that Dieter does not teach this
step for the reasons stated in the analysis of the
anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that neither Wade nor Dieter
discloses retaining a structure of previously arranged
status tables (Br21).
We agree with Appellant that Dieter does not teach this
step for the reasons stated in the analysis of the
anticipation rejection of claim 1. We further agree that
Wade does not teach this limitation. The Examiner does not
explain how the specific claim limitations are met by Wade.
For these two reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4-7, 9, and 13-17 is reversed.
Claims 10-12
- 18 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007