Appeal No. 96-2160
Application 07/862,888
scheduling path and the non-preemptive scheduling path of Deitel met the two paths
argued and claimed by appellants [answer, page 5]. Appellants filed a reply brief in which
they asserted that the claims had not been properly interpreted within the meaning of the
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We consider this latter argument first. In our view, method claim 1 is not written in
“step plus function” form, but rather, is written as a conventional method. Claim 1 recites a
simple sequence of steps, and the steps do not include an additional functional recitation
added thereto which would bring 35 U.S.C. § 112 into consideration. With respect to
apparatus claim 6, however, we agree with appellants that this claim must be construed in
accordance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The statute requires that the
means of a claim be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.
The only structure described in appellants’ specification is a block diagram of a
computer system as generally shown in Figure 1. A box 50 labeled “scheduler” is shown
with a box 52 labeled “fast thread scheduler” contained therewithin. This is the only
disclosed structure which corresponds to the scheduler of claim 6. The various means for
selecting tasks to run in claim 6 and determining which path to follow are supported in the
disclosure only by operating system kernel 12 and generic hardware system 14. The
general block diagram shown in appellants’ Figure 1 does not provide distinguishing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007