Appeal 2007-0984
Application 10/044,432
in a fourth stated rejection, the Examiner also relies upon Bright in view of
Cuccia as to claims 8, 16, and 24.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse the Examiner’s initial rejection under § 102 and,
consequently, we reverse the separate rejections under § 103 based upon
additional prior art. On the other hand, we set forth our own rejections of
claims 1 through 24 on appeal within the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Noting first that Appellant has presented arguments in the Brief only
as to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and has presented no arguments as
to the separately stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we are persuaded
by Appellant’s reasoning to reverse the rejection under § 102 for the reasons
generally set forth at pages 10 and 11 of the principal Brief on appeal. Here,
Appellant asserts, and we agree with Appellant’s understanding of Bright,
that this reference does not disclose either expressly or inherently anything
regarding transitioning a system from a so-called protected mode to a so-
called real mode; that the terms “real mode” and “protected mode” are not
used in Bright and that the terms “kernel” or “kernel routine” are not taught
or suggested either expressively or impliedly to the artisan in Bright.
The discussion in the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 of the
principal Brief on appeal makes reference to the prior art discussion at the
top of Specification page 2 relating to the use of the well known prior art
terms to “protected mode” and “real mode.” On the other hand, Bright’s
discussion in the initial paragraphs with respect to prior art processors, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013