Appeal No. 2001-1206
Application No. 08/588,942
sense of the claims being rejected.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
grouping of claims, at page 5 of the principal brief, all claims
will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on
independent claim 1.
With regard to claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that
Crump discloses the invoking of a program which executes under a
second operating system among a plurality of operating systems.
At page 3 of the answer, the examiner also lists the other steps
of the claim and corresponding portions of Crump. However, the
examiner recognizes that Crump does not recite executing the
second operating system from a shell, as claimed. The examiner
turns to Cutler and identifies pages 144, 139 and 69 as teaching
the execution of a second operating system from a shell,
concluding that it would have been obvious “to execute the
operating system through a shell for the reason set forth on page
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007