Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
(Brief at page 11.) We disagree with appellants and agree with the examiner that
Rostoker teaches the updating of databases 2906 and 2914. Moreover, we find that the
state table of Rostoker would have also been a database which temporarily stores the
results and states of the simulation of logic events that have been selected by the user
for viewing by the user. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that watching a simulation in real time might be construed as
“monitoring,” but it is not the function, intent or meaning of the term “monitor” as the
term is used in the present disclosure. (Brief at pages 13-14.) Appellants have not
identified any specific portion of the instant specification where the term “monitor” has
been given a specific definition. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. At pages
14-20 of the brief, appellants argue that Rostoker and Rajan do not teach the specific
claimed limitations and disputes the examiner interpretation. We disagree with
appellants. At page 16, appellants argue that the examiner contends that the state
table is both a monitor and a database. We find no problem with the examiner’s finding
since there must be programming and logic which would obtain the discrete values and
output them to the state table. Furthermore, there must be programming and logic to
format and present the data to the user in the state table format and to at least
temporarily store that data. Therefore, we do not find the examiner’s position
unreasonable.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007