Appeal No. 1999-0168
Application No. 08/540,349
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 3, which makes reference to
the final Office action, Paper No. 4, mailed June 5, 1997)
asserts that Cutler discloses the claimed invention except
that there is no explicit disclosure that interrupt servicing
is performed by a coprocessor. Nevertheless, the Examiner
asserts the obviousness to the skilled artisan of recognizing
that any of the processors illustrated in Figure 1A of Cutler
which service an interrupt could be considered a coprocessor.
In response, Appellants assert that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since
all of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by
the prior art references. In particular, Appellants argue
(Brief, pages 6-8) that, contrary to the limitations in the
appealed claims, each of the processors in Cutler operate
independently and individually to service exceptions and
interrupts.
After careful review of the Cutler reference in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Brief. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Cutler coincides with that of Appellants, i.e.,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007