Appeal No. 2001-2553
Application No. 08/512,369
§ 103 in view of Rudolph and Anderson, while independent claim 60
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over either one of Belo or
Baron in view of Rudolph.
It is the examiner’s position, with regard to claims 52 and
75, that Rudolph shows associating an unlocked queue of threads,
selecting movable threads, and identifying a busiest popular
processor, a popular processor being one that has an unlocked
local queue containing at least a predetermined number of
eligible threads, but does not specifically recite “threads.”
The examiner turns to Anderson for a teaching of threads as a
unit of scheduling, at page 1631, right column, first paragraph,
and concludes that it would have been obvious to place the
threads in the queues for the reasons set forth in Anderson, at
pages 1631-1632.
With regard to claim 60, the examiner contends that Belo or
Baron shows processors being assigned to exactly one processor
set, a shared memory, a bus connecting the processors with the
shared memory and an unlocked local queue of threads associated
with each of the processors. The examiner contends that Rudolph
shows a global dispatch of threads not presently associated with
any of the processors, means for selecting movable threads from
the unlocked local queues, etc. and concludes that it would have
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007