Appeal No. 2001-1606
Application 08/582,661
The examiner responds that appellant’s argument relates
to a matter that the examiner took “Official Notice” of, and that
appellant failed to seasonably challenge this finding. According
to the examiner, this “Official Notice” has now become admitted
prior art. The examiner also asserts that Richter teaches this
step [answer, pages 9-10].
Appellant responds that the examiner has still failed to
address the argument that Richter does not teach the step of
causing a thread to request the resource lock in response to
detecting that another thread requires the use of the resource.
Appellant also responds that the broad taking of “Official
Notice” by the examiner does not establish admitted prior art as
asserted by the examiner. Finally, appellant responds that the
general assertion of “Official Notice” by the examiner does not
constitute a proper finding of “Official Notice” in order to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness [reply brief].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15 for essentially the reasons argued by appellant
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007