Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
passed to the compiler "after the editor has completed the character entry or
editing function corresponding to the key struck at the terminal" (col. 9,
lines 9-11). That is, the editor works on a keystroke-by-keystroke basis and
control returns to the compiler between keystrokes, so the compiler works in
the time intervals between keystrokes. Whether the editor is interruptible or
not does not make any difference. It appears that the Examiner believes that
the editor will never give up control, but this is incorrect. This reason for the
rejection of claim 56 is reversed.
8. Group 22
As to group 22 (claims 1, 4, 6, 18, 24, 26, 41, and 825), the Examiner
finds that the limitations "subtasks each performed concurrently on
alphanumeric data" (underlining omitted) (claim 1), two threads "for
processing said alphanumeric data" (underlining omitted) (claims 4 and 6),
two threads "processing alphanumeric data" (underlining omitted)
(claims 18, 24, and 26), and (apparently) "entering and editing data code
comprising alphanumeric characters" (underlining omitted) (claim 41) lack
written description (Final Rejection 38-40 ¶ II.3(L)). The Examiner finds
that the '604 patent discloses that editor checks to see if the keystroke is a
"control character" or an "alphanumeric character" and there is no support
for amending the claims to recite that the subtasks are performed only on
"alphanumeric data" (Final Rejection 38-40).
The Examiner's position is that the claims are attempting to read out
the operations using "control characters." However, the fact that the claims
5 Claim 82 is not mentioned in the rejection, but is apparently rejected
only because it depends on rejected claim 26.
145
Page: Previous 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013