Appeal No. 96-3085
Application 08/274,655
that it does not explicitly detail the step of simultaneously
counting execution cycles associated with a specific task
being executed together with one or more other tasks by a
single processor (a multi-tasking processor). The Examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the
teachings of Peet to yield a system as claimed by using a
single processor instead of multiple processors to track a
specific task and any other tasks
associated thereto[,] because said modification would [have]
reduce[d] the amount of processors necessary to track a
plurality of tasks including a specific one [final rejection,
page 3].
Appellants argue that the invention establishes a counter
with a count for each specific task running concurrently with
other tasks in a single processor. The invention counts only
cycles associated with a specific task even if other tasks
are running concurrently. Counting is suspended for
interrupts, even though the handling of an interrupt uses
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007