Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
thread" is distinct from "input threads" or "output threads" (Br. 103,
referring to Br. 45-49). Patent Owner also notes that unamended issued
patent claims 10, 17, and 22 recite in effect that both threads are "processing
threads," by characterizing them as "threads for processing," so the
amendatory matter is not "new" under MPEP § 2258 (Br. 103).
We agree with Patent Owner that the Examiner misinterprets
"processing thread" to be a "running" or "executing" thread, so the rejection
is based on an erroneous claim interpretation. Nevertheless, this is a close
case. Unamended issued patent claims 10, 17, and 22 refer to means for
entering into memory "a body of data code to be processed" and "threads for
processing said body of [previously entered] data code." The limitation
"processing thread," by itself, does not necessarily imply that it operates
only on data previously entered into memory. "Processing" can refer to any
operation performed by the processor, including taking data from an input
and putting it into memory. Thus, claims 10, 17, and 22 do not prove that
adding "processing" to other claims is not new. Patent Owner defined
"processing" during the prosecution to be limited to operations performed on
data after it is stored in the memory and before it is output (see discussion in
anticipation rejection over De Jong). Since the descriptions of the editor and
compiler in the '604 patent disclose operations performed on data after it is
in the buffer, there appears to be sufficient support for the amendment based
on Patent Owner's statements during prosecution. This reason for the
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, 18, 24, 26, 27, 31, 33, and 82 is reversed.
143
Page: Previous 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013