Appeal No. 2002-2168 Page 7
Application No. 08/961,743
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18-23, 25-27, and 29-84
The examiner alleges, "Drury teaches a 'thread manager' in col. 6, lines 8-29."
(Examiner's Answer at 12.) The appellants argue that the reference's "transaction
manager is not a thread manager because it has nothing to do with creating, assigning,
or destroying threads." (Appeal Br. at 12.) The examiner responds, "Appellants' claim
language does not disclose or suggest 'the thread manager creates, assigns, or
destroys threads.'" (Examiner's Answer at 12.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is
subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he
name of the game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the
Protection and Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus.
Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a
thread manager assigning computing threads to sessions." Claims 12, 23, 49, 60, 71,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007