Appeal No. 2001-1606
Application 08/582,661
For all of these reasons, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, or of claims
3-10, 16-20 and 25 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 11, appellant argues
that Richter does not teach the last two causing steps recited
therein [brief, pages 12-13]. The examiner does not further
respond to this argument in the answer.
We agree with appellant that the portion of Richter
relied on by the examiner does not support the examiner’s finding
that Richter teaches these two causing steps of claim 11.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 11 or of claims 12-14 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 21, appellant argues
that Richter does not teach the step of causing the first thread
to suspend after inspecting the value at the memory location if
the value indicates that no other thread requires use of the
resource. Appellant asserts that the sleep function of Richter
noted by the examiner does not perform this step [brief, page
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007