Appeal No. 1997-1009
Application 08/033,731
EDDC process remains completely inactive. [Col. 3,
lines 31-38.]
The examiner's argument that the foregoing claim limitations
are satisfied because "figure 5, for example teaches selecting
causes for potential exceptions (see also Figure 6-9)" (Answer
at 10) is unpersuasive, because none of these figures relate
to identifying, during execution of the program code, the data
in the data table which corresponds to the potential error
currently of concern. Consequently, we are not persuaded that
Cobb, the only reference before us, discloses or suggests the
"selecting" and "retrieving" steps of claim 1 or the
corresponding steps in claim 9, the only other independent
claim.
Nor are we persuaded that Cobb discloses or suggests
claim 1's step of "describing in each subset . . . , in the
course of the execution of the task, the data fields,
dynamically defined by means of a temporary memory allocation,
which are relevant for the exception condition (Major Error)
anticipated by the task." The examiner contends this2
limitation is satisfied because "dynamic memory allocation is
2No such limitation appears in claims 9-11.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007