Appeal No. 2001-1606
Application 08/582,661
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3-9 of the
examiner’s answer. With respect to independent claims 1 and 15,
appellant argues that Richter does not teach the step of causing
a first thread to hold a lock resource until another thread
requires use of the resource. According to appellant, in Richter
all threads release the lock after accessing the resource.
Appellant also argues that even though the examiner took
“Official Notice” that causing a thread to perform a desired
function was well-known in the art, this does not mean that
causing a thread to perform a particular function as claimed was
also well-known in the art. Appellant additionally argues that
Richter does not teach the step of causing a thread to request a
resource lock in response to detecting that another thread
requires the resource. Finally, appellant argues that the
examiner’s position that his official notice is now admitted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007