Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 51, 78, and 79 is
affirmed. The rejection of claims 61, 62, and 64 is reversed because these
claims have either already been reversed or because they depend on a
reversed claim.
6. Summary
The obviousness rejection of claims 41, 42, 51, 78, and 79 is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 52-56, 61-67,
73, 74, 76, and 77 is reversed.
De Jong and Nitta or Heard
The anticipation rejection over De Jong was reversed because De Jong
does not disclose "multithreading." Nitta and Heard do not disclose
"multithreading" and cannot cure the deficiencies of De Jong. Accordingly,
the rejections of claims 39-43, 48, 49, 51-56, 61-67, 73, 74, and 76-79 over
De Jong and either Nitta or Heard are reversed.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
1.
Preliminary issue
A preliminary issue is whether the '604 patent can be amended to add
and claim subject matter which was disclosed in the parent 1990 application,
but which was omitted in the 1994 application which became the '604
patent, assuming there is no inherent support for it in the '604 patent.
116
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013