Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
as prior art" (Br. 27), indicating that the Examiner considered the
applications entitled to the 1982 priority date.
(3) "[O]n a number of separate occasions, the Patent Office
specifically and deliberately stated that the patent claims were entitled to the
filing date of the original 1982 application." (Br. 28.) Patent Owner points
to several Examiner's Answers (Exhibits 44-47) which cite an effective
filing date of 1982 for the 1990 and 1994 applications (Exhibit 48 indicates
that "1992" in the Examiner's Answers of Exhibits 46 and 47 should be
"1982") (Br. 28). It is noted that the Examiner stated in the Examiner's
Answer of Exhibit 46, that "the time of the [Patent Owner's] invention" was
"1982," and stated in the Supplemental Examiner's Answer of Exhibit 47
that OS/2 publications would not be considered because they were
"published after the effective filing date of the application" (pages 4-5) and
were "developed after Applicant's effective filing date" (page 7) (Br. 28).
(4) "[B]oth issued '603 and '604 patents specifically recite that the
applications are 'entitled to an effective filing date of September 28, 1982'"
(Br. 28) and "[t]he Patent Office would not have done this unless it was
satisfied that the '603 and '604 claims were supported by the original 1982
specification" (Br. 29).
(5) A Board decision on appeal in the 1990 application entered a new
ground of rejection of claim 59 under § 112, first paragraph, for lack of
written description of "asynchronously" interrupting execution of the threads
(Exhibit 51), but did not reject any other claims (Br. 29). It is noted that the
Board characterized (Exhibit 51, page 2) the disclosed invention in
essentially the words of claim 62, which recited a "multithreading
software-programmable general-purpose computer system for concurrent
88
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013