Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 29.
The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, page 2) that Roth
shows in Figures 2-4 and describes in column 6 storing a table of
instructions to be remediated and associated remediation
parameters. The examiner further reads Roth, column 7, lines 34-
47, as remediating an instruction and executing the instruction
in accordance with the corresponding remediation parameters. The
only limitation the examiner finds lacking from Roth is the
explicit detection of a program location corresponding to an
instruction to be remediated. However, the examiner asserts that
detection of a program location would have been obvious for the
data adapter to be able to convert the program.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 5-6) that Roth does not teach
remediating instructions. Roth instead supplies data in a format
expected by the instruction. As such, Roth does not store a
table containing a table entry for each program instruction that
is to be remediated. The examiner responds (Answer, page 3) that
appellants' "remediation of instructions is equivalent to
remediation of data as shown on pages 8-10 of the specification."
We agree with appellants. We first note that "equivalence"
is not the same as being the same. Equivalence suggests an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007