Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
of a natural language by using fuzzy language. Nevertheless, since claim 64
depends on claim 63, the rejection of claim 64 is also affirmed.
10. Group 27
As to group 27 (claim 68), the Examiner finds that the limitation of
"repeatedly executing the editor to control the central processor to insert an
input character into a respective operator-selected location within said
buffer" lacks written description because the editor is executed once after
each compiler interruption and is not repeatedly executed, and the limitation
of "passing control of the central processing unit from the editor upon each
completion by the editor of an insertion of a character into said buffer" lacks
written description because the editor is not interrupted and one character or
a whole program could be entered (Final Rejection 42-43 ¶ II.3(P)).
Patent Owner argues that since the compiler is repeatedly interrupted,
the editor is repeatedly executed (Br. 106-7). Patent Owner argues that in
the disclosed embodiment, when the compiler is interrupted by the clock, the
interrupt service routine checks to see if a key has been struck, and, if so, the
editor takes control and if the key is an alphanumeric key, it is inserted into
the source code buffer and the editor returns to the compiler using the
"TOPLO" procedure described at column 9, lines 8-20 (Br. 107).
We agree with Patent Owner. The compiler is repeatedly interrupted
by the clock, the input port is polled, and the interrupt service routine editor
is executed if polling reveals that a key was struck ('604 patent, col. 10,
lines 6-11). The editor is repeatedly run even if it is not run every time the
compiler is interrupted. Control is passed to the compiler "after the editor
has completed the character entry or editing function corresponding to the
149
Page: Previous 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013