Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334
using a second amount of memory.” The language of claim 31 fails to
distinguish over, for example, the computer that uses an operator (code 220;
Trainin Fig. 2) to process an amount (less than the total amount) of data that
resides in a first part of data memory 230, and then process additional data
that resides in a second part of data memory 230.
We are thus not persuaded that the Examiner’s finding of anticipation
is in error with respect to claim 31. We sustain the rejection of claim 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Trainin.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 23 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Trainin is: (1) reversed for claim 23; and (2) affirmed for
claim 31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013