Appeal No. 1999-0041
Application 08/475,669
Undy, Page 17, Left Column, especially after the combination
with James.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.) The appellants argue,
“the asserted Undy-James combination cannot fairly be said to
teach disclose or suggest a mechanism that allows tasks to
execute on a task for task basis directly on said conventional
bi-endian processor.” (Appeal Br. at 5.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives,
21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501
(1990)). Here, claims 2-5 and 18 specify in pertinent part the
following limitations: “a conventional bi-endian processor,
said processor being used to execute a plurality of tasks,
said tasks including big endian tasks and little endian tasks;
... said tasks executing on a task-for-task basis directly on
said conventional biendian [sic] processor ....” Accordingly,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007