Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 20, 1998) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Mar. 29, 1999) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
Jan. 11, 1999) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In the statement of the section 103 rejection of claim 1 (Final Rejection at 3-4),
Camillone is relied upon as teaching two limits for controlling allocation of shared
resources: an allocation limit and a selected limit (i.e., a soft limit described at column 9,
lines 3 through 5 of the reference). Camillone is recognized as not teaching
suspending execution of a particular task for a selected penalty time. The rejection
turns to Ferguson for the teaching of suspending execution of a particular task for a
selected penalty time. The subject matter of claim 1 is deemed to be rendered obvious
by the references, using “two limits...so that the objects of Ferguson can provide a task
scheduling method for a real time computer system having automatic memory
management.” (Final Rejection at 4.)
Appellant argues (Brief at 4) the examiner has not cited any objective teaching
that would have led the artisan “to apply allocation quotas for user accounts as taught
by Camillone to per-task resource allocation quotas as taught by Ferguson.” The
examiner responds (Answer at 3-4), referring to columns 3 and 4 of Camillone, that the
reference discloses that resource account identifiers are indicated for each process,
and that processes are divided into critical and non-critical processes. Ferguson is
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007