Ex Parte Dageville et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-1048                                                                               
                Application 09/969,334                                                                         
                      The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:                                

                   1. Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                          
                      anticipated by Trainin.                                                                  

                      Claims 1-22 and 39-45 have been allowed.  Claims 24-26, 28-30, and                       
                32-38 have been indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form.                       
                Claim 27 has been canceled.                                                                    

                                                  OPINION                                                      
                      Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference                       
                disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as                     
                in the claim.  Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &                              
                Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                          
                      Instant claim 23 requires, inter alia, a first storage location encoded                  
                with an estimate of size of data to be input, a second storage location                        
                encoded with current size of a portion of data input so far, and a third                       
                storage location encoded with an instruction to increase the estimate when                     
                the current size has a predetermined relation to the estimate.  The statement                  
                of the rejection (Answer 3) contends that the first, second, and third storage                 
                locations are described by Trainin at column 2, lines 21 through 23.                           
                      Trainin describes a prior art memory allocation (Fig. 2).                                
                             In order to address the issue of the growth of memory                             
                      needs for additional tasks over time, for both the data and stack                        
                      portions, the prior art system 200 illustrated in FIG. 2 has been                        
                      used.  FIG. 2 illustrates memory allocation for both data and                            
                      stack growth. A task may have several different portions to it.                          
                      The first is the actual program 220, or the code that is executed                        

                                                      3                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013