Ex parte MARTIN - Page 6

          Appeal No. 2000-1326                                       Page 6           
          Application No. 08/658,272                                                  


          executable code (compiling it) before executing it                          
          separately.”  Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 261 (3d ed.               
          1997)(emphasis added)(copy attached).  Because the dictionary               
          contradicts the examiner’s interpretation, we are not                       
          persuaded that the reference discloses the limitations of “[a]              
          compiler apparatus. . . .”  Therefore, we reverse the                       
          rejection of claim 30 and of claims 31-36, which depend                     
          therefrom.                                                                  


                                     CONCLUSION                                       
               In summary, the rejection of claims 30-36 under § 102(e)               
          is reversed.                                                                


                                      REVERSED                                        





                         PARSHOTAM S. LALL             )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge   )                              
                                                       )                              
                                                       )                              
                                                       )                              
                                                       ) BOARD OF PATENT              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November  3, 2007