Appeal No. 2004-2175
Application 09/086,627
some of its resources and move to a lower run level" as discussed
at lines 22 and 23. Thus, appellant's assertion at the middle of
page 9 of the principal brief that Culbert does not teach
forcibly taking resources away from the second group of tasks
even if they are a priority lower than that the first task is not
well received. It is further noted that corresponding teachings
exists at column 9, lines 27 and 28 and at column 11, lines 11
and 12 that "Tasks with lower priority will always be degraded as
much as possible before any high priority task." In the context
of the promotability of tasks in Figure 5, a corresponding
complementary teaching exists at column 12, lines 36-37.
Finally, we find equally compelling the teaching at column 11,
lines 5-6 that a "task can respond that it can not be changed and
can not give up any resources."
Thus, it is clear to us that the teaching value of Culbert
at least may be fairly stated to ensure that a high priority
process is guaranteed sufficient network resources irrespective
of any effect on lower priority tasks which will be degraded as
much as possible before any high priority task.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007