Appeal 2007-1968
Application 10/400,856
since the Examiner recognizes that FPGAs are also well-known in the art
and by definition may be programmed after manufacture. It is further noted
that the bulk of the figures in Smith already indicate that various register-to-
register communications occur between the various processors embodying
the different operating systems and different instruction sets to the extent
generally recited in each independent claim on appeal.
Lastly, we turn to the positions set forth at page 8 of the Brief relative
to independent claim 20 to which the Examiner responds at page 11 of the
Answer. We generally agree with the Examiner’s position that Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Moreover, our
earlier remarks in this opinion appear to address the substance of the
arguments at page 8 of the Brief anyway because it is known in the art
according to Appellant’s own recognition that the same or different
operating systems in the same or different instruction set architectures may
be embodied in the same heterogeneous computer system, notwithstanding
the intent of Smith to have them be different. The whole focus of Smith is to
determine the compatibility between different operating systems and
instruction set architecture types as best expressed at the end of the Abstract
of Smith’s patent.
These compatibility determinations also take an interesting twist in
view of the generalized teachings at column 12, line 66 through column 13,
line 32 indicating the interchangeability of the disclosed first and second
operating systems in Smith.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013