Ex Parte 5694604 et al - Page 68


                Appeal 2007-2127                                                                                  
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621                                                              
                interrupt service routine is not interruptible.  Patent Owner argued in the                       
                California civil action that the editor in the '603 patent (which has the same                    
                "Detailed Description" at the '604 patent) is capable of being interrupted.  In                   
                the appeal, Patent Owner appears to concede that the editor is not                                
                interruptible, but argues that a thread does not need to be interruptible.                        
                Nevertheless, we discuss why the editor is not interruptible because it is not                    
                certain that Patent Owner will not change his position and because it will                        
                help explain why the 1982 application does not disclose multithreading.                           
                       Patent Owner argued that the sentence in the 1990 application that                         
                "For most applications clock interrupts at about every 10 to 30 milliseconds                      
                should be frequent enough to keep up with keys stroked," implies that the                         
                editor must be interruptible.  See Reiffin v. Microsoft, 270 F. Supp. 2d                          
                at 1140-42.  The district court found that the sentence did not suggest that                      
                the editor was interruptible because the plain meaning is just what the                           
                sentence says, and "[t]he reasonable inference to draw is that, if such an                        
                interval of time is inadequate, then the period between interruptions can be                      
                adjusted accordingly, e.g., to 50 milliseconds."  Id. at 1142.  The district                      
                court also concluded that "[t]he plain reading of the sentence is further                         
                bolstered by the fact that there is no express provision within the description                   
                for the saving and retrieving of the context of the editor, as required by the                    
                court's construction of the term 'thread.'"  Id.                                                  
                       We agree with the district court's reasoning.  In addition, we agree                       
                with the Examiner's reliance on Zaks, Programming the Z80, pages 500-502,                         
                for technical reasons why the editor, as disclosed, is not interruptible.  The                    
                '604 patent (and the 1990, 1985, and 1982 applications) discloses a system                        
                utilizing a Z80 microprocessor (e.g., Figure 2).  We compare the description                      

                                                       68                                                         

Page:  Previous  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013