Ex Parte BENAYON et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-0759                                                        
          Application No. 09/088,747                                                  


               The disclosed invention relates to a mechanism and to a                
          process for user heap management.                                           
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.  A mechanism for user heap management during program                
          execution in an operating system having means for allocating                
          dynamic memory and a runtime library, the mechanism comprising              
          user-controlled means for directing heap allocation requests,               
          said user-controlled means being located in the memory supplied             
          by an executing program and including therein heap control data             
          defining heap type and semaphores for multithreading.                       

               The reference relied on by the examiner is:                            
          Benayon et al. (Benayon)      5,809,554           Sept. 15, 1998            
               Claims 11 through 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 stand rejected under           
          the judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims             
          1 through 3 of Benayon.                                                     
               Reference is made to the noted brief and the answer for the            
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               In response to the rejection, appellants state (brief, page            
          1) that “[t]his rejection will be addressed by the filing of a              
          terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.321(c) upon              
          the finding of allowability of any of the claims in question.”              
          In view of appellants’ response, the judicially created double              

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007