Appeal No. 1997-1207
Application 08/272,590
rejection, pages 2 to 3]. We consider claim 1 as
representative of the group.
Appellants argue [brief, pages 9 and 10] that “teachings
of Lockwood and East et al would not result in the steps of
protecting each resource by a security number, where resources
that belong to a common resource configuration receive the
same
security number; and upon demand of a respective resource by a
respective processor, the security number of the respective
recourse [sic] seize for the respective processor, the result
thereof being that the entire resource configuration to which
the respective resource belongs is protected against parallel
accesses by other processors.” The Examiner responds [answer,
pages 3 to 8] that Lockwood, col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line
5, shows a resource 16 (Lockwood’s fig. 1) which is not a
single entity as argued by Appellants, but could have more
than one “elements” in it and together they have the same
security number as being a part of resource 16. The Examiner
also presents [id. at 5] a claim analysis of claim 1 and
compares it with the East reference. Here, the Examiner
asserts that common resource configuration having a common
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007