Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
as an “idle thread claim” since this claim requires identifying
as a busiest processor a processor which has spent a higher
proportion of its processing capacity running application threads
versus running an idle thread relative to other processors in the
system. The fourth category, including claims 58, 59, 71-73 and
77, is identified as “limited frequency claims” since these
claims require limiting the relative frequency of global dispatch
queue accesses. Some claims, e.g., claim 53, appear in more than
one group because they have limitations which encompass more than
one group.
We accept appellant’s grouping of the claims in this manner
and we will treat the claim limitations as argued by appellant.
Turning first to independent claim 50, this claim requires,
inter alia, that a busiest processor be identified as a processor
which has received the smallest number of sleep requests during a
sampling period.
While the examiner employs Rudolph as disclosing most of the
claim limitations (see pages 5-6 of the answer), the examiner
recognizes that Rudolph does not take into consideration the
number of sleep requests, as claimed. Thus, the examiner turns
to Leung for the teaching of identifying as a busiest processor a
processor which has received the smallest number of sleep
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007