Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
12. Amendment K (part of Paper No. 36, filed October 12, 1993) (not
entered) in the 1990 application states (page 6):
THERE IS NO "APPLICANT'S DEFINITION" DISTINCT FROM
THE ORDINARY GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD MEANING
EXPLAINED IN THE TREATISE QUOTATIONS
It is respectfully submitted that there is no 'applicant's
definition' of multithreading which is distinct from the ordinary
generally understood meaning to those skilled in the art. Applicant
merely adopted the term with this ordinary meaning. As stated on
Page 8 of the Amended Brief for Appellant:
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. . . . [Emphasis by
Patent Owner.]
13. Appellant's Affidavit in Reply to Newly Cited References
(Paper No. 36½, filed November 15, 1993) in the 1990 application states
that "[t]he distinction and differences between a 'process' and a 'thread', and
between multiple 'processes' and 'multithreading', are well known in the art,
as shown by the following document quotations from authoritative treatises"
(page 4) and refers to the following books: Nguyen, Advanced
Programmer's Guide to OS/2; Microsoft Operating System/2 Programmer's
Reference, Volume 1, (Microsoft Corp. 1989); Custer, Inside Windows NT;
Young, Programmer's Guide to OS/2; Myers et al., Mastering Windows NT
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013