Appeal No. 2002-2168 Page 5
Application No. 08/961,743
Here, the specification discloses that the appellants' "context management
system allows many threadable, session contexts to share a lesser number of real
operating system threads, maintained as a thread pool within the server process."
(Spec. at 3.) "In particular, clients 8A, 8B, 8C interact with the server 1 using a free-
pool, threaded communications mechanism. . . ." (Id. at 14.) According to the
mechanism, "software items 28 listen for client transactions and hand over a client
identifier to any of thead in their thread-pool." (Id.) When such a transaction ends, its
associated "thread is then returned to the thread-pool by the communication
mechanism." (Id. at 15.) In light of this disclosure, we conclude that one skilled in the
art would understand that a free-thread pool is a waiting area for threads that are
available for use.
Second, the examiner asserts, "[c]laims 40-42, 54, 65, and 76 recite the claim
limitation 'pre-instantiated' in combination with the claim limitation 'free-thread pool'
which is not clearly defined in the Appellants' (Applicants') Specification. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "[a] pre-instantiated thread is a pre-
allocated or concrete instance of a thread." (Appeal Br. at 20.)
"The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their
ordinary and accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007