Appeal No. 2001-0653
Application 08/820,736
and repeats the rejection of claims 10 and 26 from Paper No. 7
and the final rejection, Paper No. 11 (EA9-10).
Because claim 26 is similar to original claim 10, we presume
that the same reasoning was intended to apply, although we agree
with appellants that the rejection is not express on this point.
The examiner stated (Paper No. 7, 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." We do not understand this reasoning and the rejection
has not been further explained. It is not even clear whether the
"Profiler" is meant to refer to the Profiler reference or to
profilers in general. Nor do we understand why the examiner
withdrew the rejection of claim 10 if he maintains the rejection
of claim 26 since claim 10 was only amended to add limitations of
original claim 8, from which it depended, and the original
rejected language remains unchanged.
Nevertheless, we see nothing indefinite about claim 26. The
specification states (spec. at 23):
Determining whether or not a procedure has a valid PCA
[procedure counter area] may be accomplished by comparing a
"signature" of the procedure with information in the PCA.
For example, the optimization mechanism 19 can compare the
number of counters in the PCA with appropriate number of
counters required in the procedure being processed. The
optimization mechanism 19 could also compare a check sum in
the PCA with a calculated check sum for the procedure.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007