Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
and accepted meaning of the language “pre-defined generic
program.” Further, contrary to Appellants’ contention (Reply
Brief, page 7), Crawford describes the second processor executing
a plurality of instructions “...as a result of the communicated
state corresponding to the media portion of the application
running on the first processor” as claimed. (Crawford, column 6,
line 61 through column 7, line 3; Appendix C).
Further, we find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments
(Reply Brief, pages 4-6) which attack the Examiner’s
establishment of proper motivation for the proposed combination
of references. Appellants initially contend (id., at 5) that
there is “... little evident benefit to Crawford in using the
network management scheme put forth by Laursen.” Appellants
further assert (id., at 6) that the implementation of the
application instruction interception of Fin in the system of
Crawford would be extremely difficult. In a related argument,
Appellants contend that, since the redirected code in Crawford is
not executed directly, there would be no benefit to add the
redirection scheme of Fin.
It is apparent to us, however, from the line of reasoning
expressed in the Answer that the Examiner is not suggesting the
bodily incorporation of Laursen’s network management system and
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007