Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 12
Appellants repeat the argument considered above that the
term status registers must be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the described preferred embodiment [reply brief, pages 10-
12].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 33 and the rejection of claims 34, 38 and 40 which have not
been separately argued by appellants. We decline to interpret
the claimed invention in the manner proposed by appellants in the
reply brief for reasons discussed above. We agree with the
examiner that the claimed vector can be broadly interpreted in a
manner that is met by Brichta. We also agree with the examiner
that Brichta teaches taking a corrective measure associated with
the vector as explained by the examiner.
With respect to separately argued claims 39, appellants
argue that Brichta fails to teach where the central processing
unit sorts the at least one corrective measure in order of
decreasing desirability [brief, pages 12-13]. The examiner
responds by explaining how the results in Brichta can be
considered to meet the language of claim 39 [answer, pages 26-
28]. Appellants respond that the examiner’s position can be
reached only through an improper use of hindsight [reply brief,
pages 12-13].
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007