Appeal No. 2001-1606
Application 08/582,661
the resource and the step of causing the first thread to request
the resource lock when detecting that another thread requires use
of the resource. Although the examiner took “Official Notice”
that the first step was, per se, well known, this notice does not
establish that the first step in combination with the other steps
of claims 1 and 15 would have been obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. We also agree with appellant that they are not
foreclosed from arguing the finding of “Official Notice” in this
case while the case is still being prosecuted before the
examiner.
We also agree with appellant that the second step noted
above is not taught by Richter, and the examiner has never
addressed this particular limitation of claims 1 and 15. We note
that the key to this limitation is that the first thread always
gets the resource lock back when another thread has finished with
the resource. This enables the first thread to provide feedback
to the user so that the user does not become concerned that the
program is not operating properly. There is no suggestion of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007