Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
Page
3. '604 patent's definition of "multithreading" ............................ 45
4. Reexamination claims all recite "multithreading" .................. 50
5. Patent Owner's arguments are not persuasive ........................ 53
a. Threads must be interruptible ............................................. 53
b. Ligler and Reiffin declarations ........................................... 55
c. More that one thread must be interrupted ........................... 58
PRIORITY ......................................................................................... 61
The rejections .................................................................................. 61
1. The district court decision ...................................................... 61
2. Examiner's rejection ................................................................ 63
Issue ................................................................................................ 64
Principles of law ............................................................................. 64
Analysis ........................................................................................... 65
1. "Multithreading" is not expressly disclosed ........................... 65
2. "Continuation" designation is not controlling ........................ 66
3. The 1982 application does not inherently
disclose "multithreading" ................................................... 67
a. Editor is not interruptible ..................................................... 67
b. Operation of the 1982 compiler/editor ............................... 71
c. Since editor is not interruptible, it is not a thread................ 73
d. Even if the editor was interruptible
there is no multithreading ................................................ 74
e. Editor and compiler are not executed concurrently ............ 75
f. Editor and compiler are not in same program ..................... 77
g. Editor does not have other "thread" attributes .................... 79
4. Examiner's rejection ................................................................ 80
5. "Multithreading" in '604 patent is not examined
for compliance with § 112 requirements ........................... 81
6. Patent Owner's arguments are not persuasive ........................ 82
a. Common "Detailed Description" does not
prove there is written description support ....................... 82
b. Reiffin v. Microsoft is not stare decisis ............................... 83
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013