Ex parte WALDRON et al. - Page 3




              Appeal No. 96-2160                                                                                          
              Application 07/862,888                                                                                      



                     periodically selecting a task holding a highest execution priority from among said                   
              selected tasks in the ready-to-run queue;                                                                   
                     determining if a task is executing on the processor;                                                 
                     if a task is executing on the processor, comparing the execution priority of the                     
              selected task to the execution priority of the executing task;                                              
                     responsive to the selected task holding a higher execution priority or to absence of                 
              an executing task, processing the selected task for execution on the processor along said                   
              first expedited scheduling path; and                                                                        
                     processing the selected task for execution on the processor along said second                        
              scheduling path responsive to the presence of an executing task holding an execution                        
              priority higher than the selected task.                                                                     

                     The examiner relies on the following reference:                                                      
              Deitel, An Introduction to Operating Systems, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.,                      
              pages 784-823, copyright 1990.                                                                              

                     Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the                       
              disclosure of Deitel.                                                                                       
                     Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference                    
              to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                            
                                                                                                                         






                                                            3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007