Appeal 2007-1600
Application 09/753,062
teaches that a winning agent is “selected on a priority level assigned to each
of the requesting agents,” but insist that Kermani does not meet the
limitation of “organizing at least some of the processors into a hierarchy”
because “[a] priority may be assigned within a hierarchical structure,
however, the use of a hierarchical structure does not necessitate the
assignment of a priority to any element within the hierarchical structure”
(Br. 4).
We disagree with Appellants. The question is not whether the use of a
hierarchical structure necessitates the assignment of priority, but rather
whether Kermani’s disclosed organization of processors as prioritized, one
above another, meets the claimed “hierarchy.” The answer to the question
turns on the meaning of “hierarchy.”
We note at the outset that the term is not defined in the Specification.
In response to the Office Action mailed April 21, 2004, Appellants
submitted a definition of “hierarchy,” from a text on Java programming, as
“an organizational technique in which items are layered or grouped to reduce
complexity.”4 Appellants’ Brief includes graphical exhibits of the priority
ranking of Kermani and the hierarchy ranking of the instant invention (Br. 5,
Figs. 1 and 2). Kermani teaches a straight-line arrangement of, e.g., seven
elements, #1 being above #2, which is above #3, etc. down to #7 (see FF 7),
whereas the depiction of the inventive hierarchy is in the form of a binary
tree, with one element at the topmost layer, two elements at the next layer,
and so on, with two elements branching from each one above. Appellants
4 John Lewis and William Loftus, Java Software Solutions: Foundations of
Program Design 669 (3rd ed. 2003); definition submitted with response to
non-final Office action, filed July 22, 2004.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013