Appeal No. 1998-1103
Application No. 08/668,718
We agree with the examiner that a “dry run” may be considered a “test mode” since
a “dry run,” even by appellant’s definition, would be “a simulated or practice
performance” [reply brief-page 4]. A “practice performance” is reasonably interpreted as a
test mode.
However, we part ways with the examiner when the examiner states that a “dry run”
would have been recognized by skilled artisans as a “process in which not all of the
functions performed in a complete run are performed; some functions are ‘skipped’ over.
A ‘dry run’ is merely a form of block skipping.” [answer-page 5]. We find the examiner’s
interpretation to be unreasonable and unsupported by any evidence of record. Since
Nozawa 444 does not define a “dry run,” it is reasonable to presume that such a term
would include its usual meaning. That is, to make a “dry run” would mean to make a first,
experimental, or test, run, with all operations functional, in order to determine if all
operations are functioning as expected. Therefore, there would appear to be no need to
skip any functions in a “dry run” and thus no block skipping would be indicated in such a
“dry run.” In fact, we tend to agree with appellant that if Nozawa 444 intended for the “dry
run” to mean skipping some blocks, there would appear to be no need for Nozawa 444 to
have a separate “block skip” function.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007