Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
appellant’s view, we will sustain the rejection of claims 52, 54,
55, 60-64, 66-70 and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This is because
as we read page 240 of Rudolph, the reference recites “A system-
wide threshold value, J, is fixed such that only task workpiles
whose length differs by more than J will perform a balancing
operation.” Thus, contrary to appellant’s contention, Rudolph is
not comparing a thread count in one workpile with the thread
count, or number of tasks on a workpile, in another workpile, but
instead, is comparing a thread count to a predetermined, or
threshold, value, J.
Specifically, with regard to claims 54 and 55, appellant
argues that Cheng, applied for a teaching of global and local
queues, teaches queues which are neither local nor global.
First, we note that the Cheng and Valencia references are
applied in the alternative in rejecting claims 54 and 55. Since
appellant presents no argument regarding Valencia, we must take
the examiner’s position as viable and the rejection of claims 54
and 55 can be sustained for that reason alone.
Moreover, the examiner points out that the “ready queues” of
Cheng are local (pointing to Figure 1-task queue organizations)
and that “the tasks in a centralized ready queue are local and
are in a global queue and Cheng teaches that” (answer-pages 18-
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007