Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
control to global queue thread(s).
The examiner’s response is to point to page 379, right
column, second paragraph, of Cheng. The examiner contends that
Tr is the ratio of “the number of tasks moved one level down the
tree to the number of processor(?) below the child task queue”
(answer-page 21). The examiner concludes, without support, in
our view, that “since the combination of the references
necessarily includes all of the steps needed for limiting
frequency of global dispatch queue accesses, the combination must
perform the same function” (answer-page 21).
We find appellant’s argument convincing. The examiner has
failed to show that Valencia suggests the three control yielding
steps for limiting the relative frequency of global dispatch
queue accesses.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 58,
59, 71-73 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Since we have sustained the rejection of claims 52, 54, 55,
60-64, 66-70, and 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and have not sustained
the rejection of claims 50, 51, 53, 58, 59, 65, 71-73 and 77
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-
part.
-13–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007