Appeal No. 96-3085
Application 08/274,655
specific task of higher priority, then Appellant's counter
associated with the prior specific task would stop counting.
There is no such provision in Peet. Peet's counter 71, on the
other hand, keeps on counting as long as the maximum drift
value is not reached.
Thus, we are unable to see how Peet's system can be
modified to meet the feature of "counting only processor
execution cycles associated with a specific task occurring
while said specific task is executed, said specific task being
executed together with one or more other tasks by a single
processor;..." [claim 1, lines 4 through 7].
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1.
As to the rejections of claims 2, 4/1, 4/2 and 8 through
11, which are all rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Peet, they are reversed for the same rationale.
They all contain, among others, the feature discussed above,
in the form of method or apparatus.
With regard to claims 3/1 and 3/2, the Examiner has
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007