Appeal No. 2004-1380
Application No. 09/513,425
The examiner essentially finds that Kampe teaches the method of
claim 1 except that Kampe does not explain the intricacies of the
system program or how the loader and main module interact with
the kernel to generate text status messages. The examiner cites
Shearer as teaching one example of interacting with a kernel to
allow for additional processing before a specific activity is
implemented. The example disclosed by Shearer is the use of a
pseudo-device driver to intercept system calls and then to
forward the call onto the targeted kernel function. The examiner
finds that the pseudo-device driver of Shearer is the same as the
claimed activity driver. The examiner also finds that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to use a pseudo-driver as taught
by Shearer to monitor requests for activity and generate messages
in Kampe [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that the pseudo-driver of Shearer is used
with system calls and does not disclose monitoring a request for
an activity using an activity driver. Specifically, appellants
argue that the system calls of Shearer are not requests for an
activity. Appellants also assert that Shearer fails to teach or
suggest the use of its pseudo-drivers in connection with a system
for retrieving icons related to an activity. Finally, appellants
argue that the examiner has not provided a convincing rationale
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007