Appeal 2007-1509
Application 09/427,114
Appellants’ arguments do not attack the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Orimo, FOLDOC, and Charles but, rather, focus on the
alleged deficiency of the Orimo reference in disclosing plural processors,
each of which execute a processing function different from one another as
claimed. According to Appellants (Br. 9-10), the processors 12 and 13
(Figure 8) and 11-13 (Figure 10) of Orimo, in contrast, execute multiple
version programs which perform the same function of simulation.
It is apparent from the disclosure of Orimo, however, that Appellants’
arguments overlook the operation of processor 14 illustrated in Figures 8 and
10 of Orimo. As described, for example, at column 8, lines 8-12 and column
10, lines 19-23 of Orimo, the processor 14 receives the results of the
simulation processing in processors 11-13 and performs a different
application program processing utilizing the results of the simulation
processing. That the processing performed by Orimo’s processor 14 is
different from that performed by processors 11-13 is verified by Orimo at
column 11, lines 18-20.
We also find no error, Appellants’ arguments to the contrary
notwithstanding, in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 4) that Orimo’s
processor 14, which receives and executes a second processing after it
receives the results of the first processing from processors 11-13, is
operating asynchronously with respect to processors 11-13. We further
agree with the Examiner (Answer 12) that Orimo discloses that one
processing is executed on each pixel data by one of the processors at a time
as claimed since the claim language does not require that only one
processing is executed at a time.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013