Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
2. Examiner's rejection
The Examiner found that none of the reexamination claims are
entitled to a priority date earlier than the filing date of the '604 patent
because there is no written description support for the term "multithreading"
in the '603 patent (filed in 1990) or the earlier 1985 and 1982 applications
for the following reasons.
The Examiner states that Patent Owner did not introduce the term
"multithreading" until after the filing date of the 1990 application, indicating
that he did not have possession of the invention in 1982 (Final
Rejection 64-65 ¶ III.2).
The Examiner states that the '603 patent does not disclose preempting
more than one thread because the editor can not be interrupted and the editor
is not a thread because there is no disclosure of saving and restoring its
context (Final Rejection 65-72 ¶ III.3(A)-(F)). These reasons correspond
exactly to the six critical defects argued by Microsoft in Reiffin v. Microsoft,
270 F. Supp. 2d at 1140.
The Examiner states that the '603 patent does not disclose necessary
features of multithreading, such as "start," "stop," "communication with each
other," "synchronization," "serialize use of system resources," "close
cooperation of threads," and/or interference of one thread by another thread
(Final Rejection 72-73 ¶ III.3(G)).
The Examiner adopts the reasons stated by the district court in Reiffin
v. Microsoft, 270 F. Supp. 2d at 1142-43 (Final Rejection 73-74 ¶ III.4).
63
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013