Appeal No. 2003-1030
Application No. 08/820,181
CLAIM 4
Appellant argues that independent claim 4 recites that a thread is awakened as
granted access to a resource in fair order. (Brief at page 17.) While appellant recites
“fair order” in independent claim 4, we find no express definition of that limitation that
would require this to be in a FIFO order as with independent claim 2 and as discussed
above, we find that “fair” may have differing interpretation for different systems.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 4 and claims 5-7 which appellant has elected to group therewith.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007