Appeal No. 1998-2979
Application No. 08/274,923
teaching in Kuechlin to support this position. The examiner cites to page 1 [sic, 2],
paragraph 2 of Kuechlin to again teach the independent and parallel operation, but in our
view, this does not support the examiner’s position. The examiner further relies upon
Kuechlin at page 4 disclosing algorithms using thread subsystems. From our review of
page 4 of Kuechlin, Kuechlin does not disclose that the mutator programs resume
execution prior to completion. From our review, page 4 of Kuechlin merely discloses
limitation the organization of the S-thread system without detail to the garbage collection.
Therefore, the examiner’s argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, the examiner maintains that the limitation is not present in the language
of claim 1. We disagree with the examiner. The examiner argues that the claim limitations
do not set forth requiring the restriction to be lifted prior to completing the garbage
collection. (See answer at page 13.) We agree with the examiner, but note that, here, the
examiner has not addressed the language of claim 1 with respect to the “as soon as” and
“thread state” limitations as defined in the specification at page 5. (See brief at page 4.)
The examiner disagrees with appellant’s interpretation of the claim language and the
examiner’s broad interpretation of the individual limitations/words in the claim. (See
answer at page 13.) We disagree with the examiner. Here, the examiner has not
addressed the claim as a whole, nor has the examiner used a reasonable interpretation of
the claim language in light of appellant’s arguments and disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007