The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte R. SCOTT GONGWER, CHARLES P. VENEZIA JR.,
KURT LARSON, and JAMES E. CAREY
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2168
Application No. 08/961,743
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-84.
The appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal relates to multi-user computing. A large scale
computing system (e.g., a database management system) may need to service multiple
users concurrently. Different processing models have been used to provide such
service. (Spec. at 1.) In particular, a "multi-thread model" uses a single execution of
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007