Appeal No. 2001-1206
Application No. 08/588,942
144” [answer-page 6].
We REVERSE.
While we are unsure of the “reason” set forth on page 144 of
Cutler, we are willing to give the examiner the benefit of the
doubt that Crump discloses the claimed invention but for the
execution of the second operating system from a shell and that
Cutler discloses the execution of a second operating system from
a shell. Even so, and assuming there was an adequate motivation
to combine these teachings, we still fail to find, within the
applied references, a teaching that the shell which executes the
program under the second operating system “constrains said second
operating system such that another program cannot be invoked
under said second operating system until after control is
returned to said first operating system,” as claimed.
The examiner responds to this by stating, at page 9 of the
answer,
Cutler simply show that the programs from UNIX SVR2
could be executed on the second operating system UNIX
SVR3 [through UNIX shell] and another program cannot be
invoked under second operating system because,
execution is done through UNIX SVR3 shell and not UNIX
SVR2 shell (keeping in min d that shell is a program
that understand your command in this case UNIX SVR3
command).
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007