Appeal No. 1997-2862
Application 08/069,052
On page 6 of the brief, Appellant argues that independent claims 11, 15 and 19 require that a
dummy GUI operation be inserted on top of the TTY control operation in the first thread to suspend
TTY control so that the main program is controlled by the GUI operation. Appellant argues that this
limitation is not taught or suggested by Mauney. Appellant points out that Mauney teaches that the data
is converted by the emulator into TTY data and passed to the ARC/INFO program which is fixed in
the TTY mode to receive data at its standard input.
On page 12 of the answer, The Examiner points out that Mauney can be incorporated in a
single computer using a multi-tasking operating system which requires switching between tasks. The
Examiner points us to column 4, lines 63-65, for support of this statement. The Examiner argues that
the multi-tasking operating system would allow switching so that the system may read another thread.
Appellant responds to this argument on page 4 of the reply brief that Mauney is merely teaching that by
using a multi-tasking operating system, one would be able to simulate the actions of the two separate
computers and thus maintain all the capabilities and limitations of the system.
In response, the Examiner filed a supplemental Examiner's answer stating that Mauney's
teaching of multi-tasking operations to simulate the actions of two or more separate computers along
with the prior art that shows multiple threads which sequence TTY or GUI operations would lead those
skilled in the art to obtain a computer to perform multiple tasks that emulate TTY or GUI computer
operations. In response, Appellant filed a supplemental reply brief and argues that the Examiner is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007