Appeal No. 96-2141
Application 07/965,590
Claims 1 to 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Cliff in view
of Noguchi.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We reverse the outstanding rejection of claims 1 to 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Both independent claims 1 and 26 on appeal require a
parallel processing system operating on a parallel program having
plural tasks. From an architectural point of view, both
references relied upon by the examiner each relate to single
processor-based systems rather than the claimed multiprocessor-
based system. Thus, the combined teachings of the references
would not have met this major structural requirement of each
independent claim on appeal even though we recognize and
appellant appears to recognize that both references relate to a
multi-programming or multitasking environment consistent with the
parallel program aspects of the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007