Appeal No. 1998-3399
Application No. 08/239,138
context manager [sic, module] and controls the execution of
the context module." However, representative claim 40 does
not include this limitation. Therefore, we need not determine
whether or not Nye meets the limitation for the first group of
claims. As appellant has failed to convince us of any
distinction between Nye and claim 40, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 40 and the claims grouped therewith, claims
1 through 5, 10 through 13, 15 through 39, and 41 through 43.
Regarding the second group of claims, each of claims 6
through 9 and 14 depends from claim 1 and, therefore, includes
all of the limitations thereof, which appellant argues with
respect to the first group of claims. Therefore, before
addressing any of the limitations recited in any of the second
group of claims, we must look at the limitations of the base
claim. Specifically, appellant states (Brief, page 7) that
Nye fails to teach a context manager retrieving the context
module and controlling the execution of the context module.
The examiner fails to indicate what element of Nye corresponds
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007