Appeal No. 1998-2979
Application No. 08/274,923
Kuechlin et al. (Kuechlin), “On Multi-Threaded List-Processing and Garbage
Collection”, Department of Computer and Information Science, The Ohio
State University, pp 1-18 and abstract (March 22, 1991).
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kuechlin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Jan. 2, 1998 ) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed Oct. 20, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed Mar. 2, 1998) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the examiner has not set forth a rejection based upon
obviousness, but has only rejected claims 1-17 based upon anticipation. (See brief at
page 3.) We agree with appellant that the examiner’s bases his rejection upon
anticipation. Appellant argues that the examiner’s chart in the answer establishes that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007