Appeal No. 1999-0288
Application No. 08/538,071 Page 10
The examiner adds (id.) that "it would have been obvious to check
the bit set of those registers during normal operation because,
as claimed by the applicant, such a process step has no net
effect on any of the monitoring procedures claimed."
With respect to independent claim 17, the examiner presents
similar arguments (final rejection, pages 10-12) as were
presented with respect to independent claims 6 and 8.
With respect to independent claims 22, 31, and 36, and 37,
the examiner (final rejection, page 7) refers to independent
claims 8 and 17.
With respect to independent claim 38, the examiner (final
rejection, page 17) refers to claim 8, and adds that it would
have been obvious to store the routines of Wibecan on a computer
readable medium.
With respect to independent claims 39 and 40, the examiner
(id.) refers to claims 6, 8, and 17, and again adds that it would
have been obvious to store the routines on a computer readable
medium.
Appellants assert (brief, page 13) that "Wibecan in view of
Brantley does not render [independent] Claims 6, 8, 17, 22,
31,,36, 37, 38, 29, or 40 obvious." Appellants argue (brief,
page 14) to the effect that it would not have been obvious to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007