Appeal No. 1997-2983 Page 10
Application No. 08/482,792
Here, the examiner admits that the AAPA does not disclose
using dedicated buses for any reason, let alone only for
context switching. He specifically concedes, "[a]pplicant's
admission fails to detail the third and fourth bus."
(Examiner's Answer at 5.) The examiner asserts, "Levy et al.
(col. 6, lines 1-6) and Delagi et al.(col. 2, lines 5-10 et
seq.; fig. 2) expressly detail the use of dedicated buses from
the CPU to the RAM and a separate system bus." (Examiner's
Answer at 5.) Although the references teach using dedicated
buses, the buses are not used for context switching. In fact,
the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that either Levy
or Delagi even mention context switching. He also fails to
show that Tanaka or Maejima remedy the defect of AAPA, Levy,
and Delagi.
Because the examiner does not meet the requirement for
actual evidence, we are not persuaded that teachings from the
prior art would have suggested the limitations of "third and
fourth buses being exclusively used for switching between the
presently executing program and the different program;" "a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007