Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
7. Group 21
As to group 21 (claim 56), the Examiner finds that the limitations of
"a keyboard for entering code in the form of sentences of a language in
response to keystrokes" and "parsing said words during time intervals
between the keystrokes" lack written description support because the editor
is not interruptible and the compiler does not execute when the editor is
running, so the compiler cannot parse words during the time intervals
between the keystrokes (Final Rejection 36-37 ¶ II.3(K)).
Patent Owner argues that the question of whether or not the editor is
interruptible is irrelevant to whether the compiler can parse words during the
time interval between keystrokes (Br. 104). It is noted that in the
clock-activated embodiment, a clock generates an interrupt, invoking the
interrupt service routine, the input port is polled to test if a key has been
struck, and if so the editor is invoked (Br. 105). It is argued that if the
keystroke is an ordinary alphanumeric character, it is "entered into the
source code buffer and displayed on the video screen, and the screen cursor
is advanced to the next character position" ('604 patent, col. 5, lines 20-22)
and the editor terminates and returns control to the interrupted compiler
operation (Br. 105-06).
The limitations about "sentences of a language" and "words" were
addressed supra. As noted in the discussion of group 4, the keyboard in the
'604 patent can enter alphanumeric and control data in any "form," including
in the form of words and sentences.
We agree with Patent Owner that "parsing said words during time
intervals between the keystrokes" is supported by the '604 patent (with the
exception of the term "words"). The '604 patent discloses that control is
144
Page: Previous 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013