Ex parte HENNESSEY - Page 4




              Appeal No. 1998-2979                                                                                            
              Application No. 08/274,923                                                                                      


              the steps recited in claim 1 are not present or inherent in the teachings of Kuechlin.  (See                    
              brief at page 3.)  We agree with appellant.  The examiner relies at pages 4-5 of the answer                     
              upon two quotations within Kuechlin to teach the temporarily restricting execution of the                       
              mutators1.  Appellant argues at page 4 of the brief that neither quotation addresses the                        
              “temporarily restricting execution of said mutators while processing the corresponding                          
              thread state for each one of said mutators.”  We agree with appellant that Kuechlin does                        
              not expressly set forth the restricting execution for processing the thread state of the                        
              mutator programs.  The examiner’s reliance upon the parallel and independent operation                          
              does not address the thread state.  While it may do this function, it does not appear to us                     
              to be required or inherent.  The examiner notes at                                                              
              page 5 of the answer that it is “well known in the art” that the mark phase causes a                            

              temporary restriction on the mutator access.                                                                    
                      Furthermore, the examiner relies on the “fully parallel garbage collector’‘ (answer at                  
              page 5) to teach a “very brief restriction on mutator access due to the time critical nature of                 



                      1  Here, we note that the examiner addresses the steps of the claims after the preamble and has         
              not clearly addressed the language of the preamble in the rejection.  In the rejection the examiner             
              addresses plural mutator programs operating while the preamble of the claim recites “[a] method for             
              performing real-time computer garbage collection, for use with a plurality of data objects and with one or      
              more mutator programs.” (Emphasis added).   In our decision, we do not address whether the claims lack          
              correspondence to the recited steps if only one mutator program is operating and whether Kuechlin would         
              teach the recited steps with only one program operating, since the examiner has not used this claim             
              interpretation in the discussion of the claimed invention or the applied prior art.  In our view there would be 
              no problems with the collection of memory and thread interaction with the single program and operation          
              would commence after the single collection was completed.                                                       
                                                              4                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007