Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
this combination with regard to claims 61, 62, 66 and 68, and
further adding Anderson with regard to claim 63. The examiner
offers either one of Belo or Baron, with Rudolph and Leung with
regard to claim 65 and either one of Belo or Baron, with Rudolph
and Cheng with regard to claims 67 and 69-73. The examiner
applies Squillante and Draves with regard to claim 74.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In arguing certain claim limitations, appellant groups the
claims into four categories. The first category, including
claims 50, 51, 53 and 65, is identified as “sleep request claims”
since the claims in this group require identifying as a busiest
processor a processor which has received the smallest number of
sleep requests during a sampling period. The second category,
including claims 52-55, 60-71 and 75, is identified as “minimum
count claims” since the claims in this group require identifying
as a busiest processor or identifying as a popular processor a
processor which has at least a predetermined number of eligible
threads. The third category, including claim 74, is identified
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007