Appeal No. 1998-1512
Application No. 07/993,783
Claims 4, 5, and 18-20 have been objected to as depending from a rejected claim,
but deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Claims 6-8 and 11-16 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 11) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
1
No. 18) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 17) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner has rejected Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Bryg. As appellants point out (Brief, page 5), the examiner misquotes instant Claim 3 in
the statement of the rejection. That is, the examiner uses language from original Claim 3 --
“prior to the execution of [the] task” -- when referring to the “control means for pre-loading.”
(See Answer, page 3.) However, the “Response to argument” section of the Answer
makes clear that the examiner has considered the language of Claim 3 as it stands. The
examiner considers the language of Claim 3 to be sufficiently broad to read on the “pre-
loading” of the TLB in Bryg. Since the information that is loaded into the TLB comes from
1We have not considered an earlier brief, filed August 25, 1997 (Paper No. 15), which was held to
lack compliance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007