Appeal No. 2003-1030
Application No. 08/820,181
statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not
‘evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). "Mere denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to establish
a genuine issue of material fact." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617,
citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d
1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[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). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Here, we find that the language of independent claim 1 requires “A multi-tasking
operating system for managing simultaneous access to scarce or serially re-usable
resources by multiple process threads, comprising at least one resource, a plurality of
threads requesting access to said resource; and a stationary queue for allocating
access to said resource amongst said threads one-by-one in order of request.” The
examiner maintains that Davidson teaches all the limitations except for the stationary
queue and the examiner relies upon the teachings of Periwal with respect to the use of
mutex to order the access to a shared resource between a plurality of threads. (Answer
at pages 3-4.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007