Appeal No. 1997-0760
Application No. 08/003,000
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
20, 21, 23, and 29 and also the obviousness rejection of
claims 22 and 30.
For claim 20, the examiner refers (Answer, page 2) to
column 2, lines 12-31, of Parkin for all elements of the
claim. The examiner points to Parkin's tasks for appellants'
multiple threads, Parkin's task list for the atomic resource
allocation mechanism, Parkin's Executive program (Exec) for
the user-side scheduling means, and to Parkin's column 2,
lines 12-22, for the multi-threaded scheduling means.
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 7-8) that Parkin's
"tasks" are different from appellants' "threads." The
examiner responds (Answer, page 3) that "to the extent the
word 'multithreading,' 'threading,' or 'thread' is utilized in
applicant's [sic] claim language, it refers to nothing more
than a stream of executable instructions to be scheduled." In
addition, the examiner states (Answer, page 4) that "[t]here
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007