Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
19). While the local and global queues in Cheng may differ from
what appellant intends, the plain language of the claims, “local”
and “global” queues, appears to be suggested by Cheng.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 52, 54,
55, 60-64, 66-70 and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Arguments which
appellant could have made, but did not, are waived. In re
Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 231 USPQ 640 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Turning now to “idle thread” in claim 74, the examiner
relies on Squillante and Draves, with Draves being relied on for
its teaching of an idle thread. While Draves mentions “an idle
thread” in a footnote, at page 133, appellant argues that not
only is this passing reference to “idle thread” not enabling, but
that Draves’ “idle thread” is not the same thing as appellant’s
“idle thread” (principal brief-page 8). In particular, appellant
argues that, at page 20, lines 14-16, and at numerous places on
pages 21-32 of the instant specification, appellant defines “idle
thread” as a thread associated with a particular queue, and it is
a thread that performs searching and/or scheduling functions.
Contrary to this, appellant argues, Draves’ “idle thread” is
“simply a thread that is not running” (principal brief-page 8)
and Draves mentions nothing about the idle thread being
associated with a given queue, or about its being used for
-11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007