Appeal No. 2002-2168 Page 4
Application No. 08/961,743
• obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18-23, 25-27, and
29-84.
Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 18, 40-42, 49, 54, 60, 65, 71, and 76
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the two points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner asserts,
"[c]laims 18, 49, 60, and 71, recite the claim limitation 'free-thread pool' which is not
clearly defined in the Appellants' (Applicants') Specification. . . ." (Examiner's Answer
at 4.) The appellants argue, "the free thread pool is a waiting area for threads that are
ready for use, but have not been assigned to execute any particular task (launched and
allocated resources)." (Appeal Br. at 20.)
"The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). If
the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of
the scope of the invention, Section 112 demands no more. Hybritech, Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986)."
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007