Appeal No. 2000-0430
Application No. 08/742,104
transformation in response to said means for testing.” Appellant
specifically argues (brief, pages 6 and 7) that Miyahara at
column 5, lines 33 through 42 does not disclose “the
transformation of an operating specific semaphore operation or
the transformation of ‘the semaphore operation into a 80960
kernel semaphore operation,” and that:
The determination described at column 10, lines 10-50
of Miyahara is a determination of whether or not
authorization is present to create or destroy and thus
whether to perform a create or destroy operation.
Applicant urges the Board to consider that such a
determination cannot be said to comprise a
“transformation” under any definition of that term and
in particular it cannot be said to anticipate a
“transformation” as that word is utilized within the
present specification. The “transformation” set forth
within the present specification is a conversion of an
operating system specific semaphore operation into a
generic semaphore operation and no stretch of the
imagination can be said to suggest such a
transformation is suggested by a simple determining as
to whether or not authority exists to perform a create
or destroy semaphore as set forth within Miyahara.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. The Miyahara
operations of creating a semaphore object and destroying a
semaphore object are not equivalent to “transforming” a semaphore
or a request as set forth in the claims on appeal. In fact,
Miyahara does not disclose any type of transformation of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007