Appeal No. 1997-0760
Application No. 08/003,000
1978." Thus, the term "thread" has clearly been used for
independent streams of execution which can operate
concurrently, since long before appellants' effective filing
date. Accordingly, we cannot agree that a thread is merely "a
sequence of instructions for execution on a processor," as
asserted by the examiner (Answer, page 4). Therefore, we
agree with appellants that their threads are not the same as
Parkin's tasks.
Further, appellants (Brief, page 7) contend that Parkin
does not teach a multithreading scheduling means. The
examiner asserts (Answer, page 7) that
Parkin states that the Exec is stored at least
partially in the memory of each processor.
Therefore, this portion of the Exec is also present
in memory when the processor is performing a task.
Therefore, because it is present along with the
task, and because the task is presumably performing
work for a user, the Exec is at least in part "user-
side" to the extent necessary to read upon the broad
claim language. Furthermore, as Parkin states that
the Exec is present in memory of the processor along
with the task, it had to become present within the
memory in some manner such as by being compiled with
the tasks.
Also, the examiner argues (Answer, page 8),
as quoted, supra., a portion of the Exec is stored
in the memory of the processor. Therefore, another
portion of the Exec is not stored within the memory
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007