Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
p. 2): "This claim was interpreted as input to the profiler which
can/should not be contrrolled [sic] by a Profiler. Not a
limitation of a Profiler." Claim 26 was not mentioned in the
reasoning, but it contains similar language: "The program product
of claim 23 wherein said mechanism that determines if procedure
specific profile data is valid examines at least one functional
value computed from the attributes of the related procedure."
Presumably, the same reasoning was intended to apply to claim 26.
Claim 10 was amended by incorporating the limitations of
claim 8 to read (Paper No. 10): " The apparatus of claim 5 wherein
said checking mechanism determines validity of each of said at
least one procedure counter area by comparing a signature of each
procedure with information stored in each corresponding procedure
counter area [The apparatus of claim 8] wherein said signature of
each procedure includes at least one functional value computed
from attributes of said procedure."
In the final rejection (Paper No. 11), the examiner withdrew
the rejection of claim 10 but maintained the rejection of
claim 26 stating "the language is vague and indefinite" (FR2).
Appellants argue that the examiner provided no explanation
of the basis for the rejection, but merely states that the
language is "vague and indefinite" (Br7).
The examiner responds that "[claims 10 and 26] were
initially identical and both received the same rejection" (EA9)
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007