Appeal No. 2001-0048
Application No. 08/497,481
(specification, page 4, lines 14-27 and page 11, lines 19-26),
but does not specifically describe how a thread becomes the most
favored thread. Here, absent detailed disclosure to the contrary
of what Appellants mean by the “most favored thread,” the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term as the thread that is
favored over another as it has for example, the highest priority
or an affinity, is reasonable (answer, page 5). Therefore, the
Examiner has properly corresponded Vaswani’s thread, which is
finally selected, to the claimed most favored thread which is
selected as an affinity thread that has high priority. In
response, Appellants have not pointed out any error in the
Examiner’s position and instead, have merely repeated the claim
language and asserted that the prior art does not teach selecting
a most favored thread (brief, page 9). Accordingly, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 3, 9 and 12,
as well as claims 6, 7, 10 and 13 dependent thereupon, over
Vaswani and Cochcroft.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007