Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
searching or scheduling functions.
Moreover, appellant argues, the rejection should be reversed
because Squillante does not discuss “idle threads,” as used in
the claims.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 74 because while
Squillante teaches “busy” and “idle” processors, the claim is
directed to “application” and “idle” “threads.” While Draves
does mention, in passing, an “idle thread,” it is unclear to us
how a mere mention of an “idle thread” would have suggested any
modification to Squillante regarding identifying a busiest
processor, the busiest processor having spent a higher proportion
of its processing capacity running application threads versus
running an idle thread relative to a plurality of other
processors.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 74 is not sustained.
Turning, finally, to the rejection of claims 58, 59, 71-73
and 77 in the “limited frequency” group, appellant argues that
Valencia teaches local and global run queues and moving processes
between queues but does not teach the claimed global-local-global
sequence, which requires a step that yields control to a local
queue thread at least once between two steps that each yield
-12–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007