Appeal No. 1998-2979
Application No. 08/274,923
these applications.” While there would be some restriction of operation in Kuechlin, the
examiner has not addressed the language of claim 1. The limitation requires the
temporary restriction and “permitting each one of said mutators to resume unrestricted
execution, as soon as said mutator's own corresponding thread state has been
processed.” Here, the mere parallel and independent garbage collection operation with
respect to each mutator program would not, in our view, necessarily resume operation as
soon as said mutator's own corresponding thread state has been processed, as required
by the language of claim 1. Moreover, the examiner has not addressed the “as soon as”
limitation in claim 1. (See answer at pages 15-17.) The examiner addresses resuming
execution by the mutator prior to completing the entire garbage collection cycle, but the
examiner does not address the limitation which requires resuming execution by the
mutator program during its own garbage collection after the thread state is
completed/processed and prior to completion of the overall collection cycle. The examiner
concludes that Kuechlin teaches resuming execution as soon as the garbage collection is
done with the thread states. (See answer at page 17.) We disagree with the examiner’s
conclusion that Kuechlin teaches the claimed limitation under anticipation and inherency.
The examiner maintains that Kuechlin allows the mutator to resume execution prior
to completion of the cycle (answer at page 12), but does not cite to any specific
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007