Appeal No. 96-0905
Application No. 08/116,950
voted, there is no argument by appellants regarding such a
limitation or teaching by Kreis. With regard to Kreis,
appellants argue only that the reference does not provide for the
alleged deficiencies of Kolb. Accordingly, for purposes of this
appeal, we will focus, as do appellants and the examiner, on the
teachings of Kolb.
With regard to the independent claims, the examiner
recognizes that Kolb does not specifically teach that the CPU
cycle counters count machine cycles corresponding to execution
cycles but not machine cycles corresponding to stall cycles.
However, the examiner points to various portions of Kolb (page 3,
line 33 to page 4, line 1; page 9, lines 17-35) indicating that
there are many alternative possible choices of processor events
which can be used as a virtual time tick for the purpose of
measuring virtual time. Therefore, the examiner concludes, and
we agree, that it would have been obvious to have counted machine
cycles corresponding to execution, but not stall, cycles in order
to measure virtual time.
In response to appellants’ argument that all the claims
require also that the interrupt signal is to be applied at a
“selected” or a “preselected” count value, the examiner points
out that in the second embodiment of Kolb, when an interrupt
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007