Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
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. It appears that the Examiner believes that the editor will never
give up control, but this is not true. Thus, there is written description for the
limitations of claim 68. This reason for the rejection of claim 68 is reversed.
11. Groups 28, 32, and 35
As to group 28 (claim 69), the Examiner finds that the limitation
"clock driven means for periodically activating said interrupt input at brief
predetermined time intervals so as to interrupt the execution of one of said
threads upon each activation of said interrupt input" lacks written description
because the interrupt input is always after the clock is interrupted and there
is no teaching of activating the clock after activation of the interrupt input
(Final Rejection 43-4 ¶ II.3(Q)). The Examiner agrees with the district court
in Reiffin v. Microsoft that the editor is not interruptible, and therefore finds
no support for the editor being interrupted (Final Rejection 43-44).
As to group 32 (claim 75), the Examiner finds that the limitation "said
clock timer, interrupt operation and interrupt service routine coacting to
switch control of the central processor from one thread to another
repeatedly" lacks written description for the reasons stated with respect to
group 28 (Final Rejection 46 ¶ II.3(U)).
As to group 35 (claim 80), the Examiner finds the limitation "at least
one of said threads is invoked by said periodic clock-activated interrupt
service routine in response to activation of said interrupt operation" lacks
written description for the reasons stated with respect to group 28 (Final
Rejection 47 ¶ II.3(X)).
150
Page: Previous 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013