Ex Parte McCombe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2009

09738786 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN McCOMBE and REMI COTE
____________________

Appeal 2008-0841
Application 09/738,7861
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 14, 2009
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE,
and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In a paper filed November 10, 2008, Appellants request
reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from a Decision of the Board of

1 Filed on Dec. 15, 2000. The real party in interest is Wind River Systems,
Inc.
Appeal 2008-0841
Application 09/738,786

2
Patent Appeals and Interferences dated September 9, 2008 (Decision,
hereinafter.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
In the Decision, the Board reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and rejected the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
Appellants contend that the cited claims are not indefinite. (Req.
Reh’g 2.) Particularly, Appellants argue that the Specification makes amply
clear that the client process is part of the task process. Therefore, by killing
the task process, the client process included therein is also killed (Id. at 2-3.)
We grant the Request.

Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. We agree with Appellants the
Specification supports that the client process is executed from within the
client task. We further agree with Appellants that the Specification supports
that the client task is restarted or killed when the client process therein is not
fully executed within a predetermined time. We further agree with
Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would have thereby
ascertained from the Specification that by killing the client task, the client
process included therein is also killed. Consequently, we agree with
Appellants that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been apprised of the
scope of the cited claims.
Appeal 2008-0841
Application 09/738,786

3
DECISION
In light of the foregoing, we grant Appellants’ Request for Rehearing.
We also modify our prior Decision to withdraw the indefiniteness rejection
against claims 1 through 11.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING GRANTED

msc

FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK NY 10038