Appeal No. 94-3596
Application No. 07/689,655
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vince
in view of Bomba.
Claims 12, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Vince in view of Bomba and Vrielink.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vince in view of Bomba and Gunter.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and the
answer for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
and 6 through 20.
In the claims on appeal, a first (i.e., source) central
processing unit generates a command signal group that is stored
in a second (i.e., target) central processing unit. The storage
of the command signal group in the second central processing unit
causes a suspension of instruction signal group execution upon
completion of a currently executing instruction signal group.
Vince discloses a data processing system (Figure 1) that has
a plurality of data processing units or nodes 10. Each of the
data processing units 10 has access to shared data common to two
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007