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