Appeal No. 2003-0954
Application No. 09/306,190
Appellants, “[t]here is no ability in the mechanism described in the White Paper to determine to
compile an interpreted method during execution of the interpreted method.” (reply brief, page 7,
lines 21-23) Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
With respect to independent claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 23, and 24, these claims share the
“during execution” limitation of claim 1 discussed above and we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the reason discussed above with respect to claim 1.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 10 and 21 Under 35 U.S.C. §103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 10 and 21. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claims 10 and 21, these claims share the “during execution”
limitation of claim 1 discussed above and we will not sustain the Examiner’s single reference
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reason discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Other Issues
We note that at the time of filing there was a misspelling in the name of one of the
applicants. That misspelling is still present in the official record. His signature in the file shows
appellant Alexander, III’s middle name is “Preston” not “Presten”. Also, other records at the
USPTO show the spelling to be “Preston.” Appellants are invited to make the appropriate
correction to the inventorship.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007