Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
number of times that a job A needs to enter into sleep” (answer-
page 16). The examiner equates this teaching to a teaching of
identifying as a busiest processor a processor which has received
the smallest number of sleep requests of any of the processors
during a sampling period.
Leung refers to the number of times a “job” needs to enter
into sleep. Claim 50 refers to a smallest number of sleep
requests received by a “processor.” While a processor may run a
“job,” or a plurality of “jobs,” a processor is not a job and it
makes no sense for the examiner to contend that Leung teaches the
claimed “identifying as a busiest processor a processor which has
received the smallest number of sleep requests...” when Leung
identifies no processor at all.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 50
and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rudolph and Leung or of claim
53 over Rudolph, Leung, and Anderson, or of claim 65 over Belo or
Baron and Rudolph and Leung.
We now turn to claims 52-55, 60-71 and 75, claims 52, 60 and
75 being independent claims, and the limitation of identifying a
busiest, or popular, processor as a processor which has at least
a predetermined number of eligible threads.
Independent claims 52 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007