Appeal No. 96-0905
Application No. 08/116,950
signal is received by the lead processor, the location of the
processor in the program is stored and the lead processor
continues on after servicing the interrupt. Then, when a lagging
processor advances to the same position in the program, it is
also notified of the interrupt so that the interrupt is serviced
at the same virtual time by both processors. Accordingly, the
examiner considers the stored virtual time in Kolb as the claimed
“selected” or “preselected” count.
In response, appellants contend that even if the examiner’s
position, i.e., that the virtual time used to interrupt the
lagging processors in Kolb is equivalent to the
preselected/selected count of the instant independent claims, the
instant claims still distinguish over Kolb because they require
that “each” of the CPUs contains the recited interrupt circuit
and is interrupted at the preselected/selected count so that
“each” of the CPUs must be interrupted in accordance with the
preselected/selected count. Yet, the lead processor of Kolb
receives the first interrupt as soon as it is sent at some
“random” virtual time, and not at the preselected/selected time
recited in the instant claims.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11
through 14 and 16 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because while
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007