Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
cause of an “exceptional event” which initiated the execution of
a failure recovery procedure.
We note that while Appellants’ arguments of record in this
appeal have attacked Nakano as failing to disclose a “triggering
event” as claimed (Brief, page 16), we do not find such arguments
to be persuasive. We fail to see how the “exceptional event”
described by Nakano which initiates a failure recovery procedure
can be anything but a “triggering event,” especially in view of
the fact that Appellants’ own disclosure (specification, pages
22-24) describes an example of a trace triggering event to be the
vectoring of instructions to an exception handling routine.
We further note that, although the combination of the Nakano
and Bridges references has been applied only against independent
claim 1, this is not to be taken as an indication of the
patentability of any of the other claims on appeal. In any
resumption of the prosecution of this application before the
Examiner, the Examiner should consider the applicability of
Nakano and Bridges, as well as the other prior art of record and
any other discovered prior art, to all of the pending claims.
In summary, we have reversed the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-8 and 12-22, as well as
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 17,
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007