Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
disclosure or suggestion of the requirements of the claimed shared resource allocation
controller in the references applied.
We also agree with appellant (Brief at 5) that Ferguson fails to teach suspending
execution of a task for a selected penalty time and then granting the request, as
required by each of the independent claims. The examiner quotes from Ferguson and
states that “[t]his is what is recited in claim 1.” (Answer at 5.) In our interpretation of
the relevant section of Ferguson at column 5, line 37 through column 6, line 11 (as
illustrated by Figure 5), a blocked task may be scheduled to run at a later time.
However, that the task runs at a later time does not mean that the task’s resource
request will be granted at the later time. If a task attempts to consume more than its
quota, the task is caused to relinquish processor 21 during any activation of the task.
We thus conclude that a prima facie case for unpatentability has not been
established for any of the independent claims (1, 8, or 16) on appeal. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Camillone and Ferguson.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007