Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
refers to the Fourth Affidavit of Applicant (Paper No. 8) to show "[t]he
definitions and significance of these terms" (page 18).
9. The Amended Brief to the Board (Paper No. 22, filed May 14, 1993)
in the 1990 application quotes from Exhibits B to G and states (page 8):
The claims on appeal recite the terms "multithreading",
"concurrent", "asynchronous" and "preemptive". These terms are
used by appellant in the sense generally understood in the art.
Therefore an understanding of the meanings of these terms is essential
to a determination of the patentability of the claims on appeal. These
meanings are defined and explained in the excerpts from standard
treatises quoted in Exhibits B to G attached and referred to in
Paragraphs 38-51 of the FOURTH AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT.
10. Applicant's Fifth Affidavit (Paper No. 26, filed July 9, 1993) in the
1990 application states (page 3): "The system recited in the appealed claims
has a structure and mode of operation properly characterized as 'preemptive
multithreading', using the ordinary accepted meaning of this phrase shown
by the usage and definitions in the treatise pages reproduced as Exhibits B
to G of the Fourth Affidavit of Applicant."
11. Amendment H (Paper No. 27, filed July 9, 1993) (not entered) and
Amendment I (Paper No. 32, filed August 23, 1993) in the 1990 application
state that "'multithreading' is a type of 'multitasking' but is more specific in
that the threads or processes are in the same single program" (page 8) and
refer to the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary for definitions of
"multitasking" and "multithreading."
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013