Ex Parte 5694604 et al - Page 99


                Appeal 2007-2127                                                                                  
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621                                                              
                1991).  Patent Owner interprets "processing" to include only operations                           
                performed on data after it is stored in the memory and before it is output.                       
                       Patent Owner seeks to distinguish the claimed invention over De Jong                       
                by arguing that the interrupt routine in De Jong is not a processing thread                       
                because it does not process data after it has been input (Br. 47-48).  We                         
                disagree.  First, "processing" encompasses any operations performed by the                        
                processor, including the input and output of data to and from the memory.                         
                Nothing in the definition requires that processing occurs only on data after it                   
                is put in the memory.  The interrupt routine in De Jong performs processing                       
                to read data from the keyboard and store it in the buffer.  Second, even if the                   
                term "processing" is interpreted to be limited to operating on data in the                        
                buffer, the "delete" function in the interrupt routine in De Jong operates in                     
                response to the "backspace" key to delete the last character in the buffer                        
                (Findings 6 and 16).  Thus, the interrupt routine "processes" data stored in                      
                the buffer.  That the character data is only stored temporarily in the buffer                     
                and disappears after the character is sent does not preclude the interrupt                        
                service routine from "processing" data while it is in the buffer.                                 
                       If "multithreading" in the '604 patent claims was interpreted to read on                   
                the disclosed embodiment, rather than being given its ordinary meaning in                         
                the art, then De Jong would anticipate many claims.  However, rather than                         
                create more work for our reviewing court by a "backup" rejection relying on                       
                an alternative claim interpretation, we rely on our claim interpretation and                      
                conclude that De Jong is not a "multithreading" system for the same reasons                       
                discussed in the priority determination: (1) the interrupt service routine is not                 
                interruptible and its context is not stored, so it is not a thread, and there are                 
                not multiple threads; (2) even if the interrupt service routine was                               

                                                       99                                                         

Page:  Previous  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013