Appeal No. 2000-1238
Application 08/566,638
a plurality of semaphore numbers (virtual address
of semaphore, col. 3 lines 26-27) residing in said
storage means, wherein each of said plurality of
semaphore numbers defines a corresponding semaphore;
and
a mapping table residing in said storage means
(semaphore ownership table, col. 3 line 19), wherein
said mapping table defines an assignment of each of
said semaphores to each of said classes (semaphore
table defines the assignment of nodes to semaphores,
col. [3, lines] 19-46) by utilizing said plurality of
indices and said plurality of semaphore numbers and a
semaphore can be assigned to more than one class (a
semaphore can be owned by different nodes, col. 3[,]
lines 40-45.
(Bolding omitted.) Paper No. 13, at 3.
We agree with Appellant that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner has
not adequately explained, and it is not otherwise apparent to us,
why one skilled in the art, absent the guidance provided by
Appellant's disclosure and claims, would have been motivated to
(1) employ object-oriented programming in Holt's computing
system, (2) employ Decouchant's and Booth's object-oriented
semaphore techniques in Holt's system thus modified, and
(3) store the assignments of the object-oriented semaphores in
Holt's semaphore ownership table. Even assuming for the sake of
argument that it is physically possible to combine the reference
teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner, that is an
insufficient basis for combining their teachings in the manner
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007