Appeal No. 2003-1070
Application 09/021,727
claim 50 recites the timer object receives a notification from
the action set object specifying an earliest invoking time that
is to arrive next. When the earliest invoking time arrives, the
timer object sends a call-back to the action set object and the
action set object then causes the invoking of one of the events
associated with the earliest invoking time. Appellants also
argue that the other independent claim, claim 56, recites a
method for synchronizing a plurality of events scheduled on a
timeline based on a priority value of the events. To invoke the
events at an appropriate time, Appellants’ claim 56 calls for the
step of registering the time control at a next invoking time
corresponding to the earliest scheduled invoking time after the
current timeline position and receiving notification from the
time control that the next invoking time has arrived. Appellants
argue that these limitations are not taught or suggested by
Habour. See pages 12 through 16 of the Appellants’ brief.
For these limitations, the Examiner relies on Habour’s
teachings found on page 128 which states the following:
This paper offers a generalized model of fixed priority
scheduling that provides a theoretical framework for
analyzing task sets scheduled through a fixed priority
preemptive scheduler, where each task is comprised of a
number of subtasks, each executing at a different priority
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007