Appeal No. 1998-3383
Application 08/352,662
meaning consistent with the specification. Appellant points
to page 11, line 15 et seq., which defines the term
"undefined" to mean a process variable field lacking both name
and value. Appellant argues therefor the term "undefined" is
not met by Bristol's valueless but named variables.
On page 9 of the brief, Appellant further argues that the
combination of Stevens and Bristol fails to show or suggest
the limitation of "if an undefined process variable field is
found, defining a User Defined Process Variable in an
undefined process variable field" as recited in claim 1. We
note that claim 12 also has similar language. Appellant
argues that the term "User Defined Process Variable" has been
defined in the specification to have two characteristics: (1)
it is user defined (i.e., not system defined like system
defined process variable): and (2) it is a variable of a
process and is therefor defined in the process control block.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's finding that the Stevens
CHMODN FCHMOD functions do not read on User Defined Process
Variable as defined by Appellant's specification because the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007