Appeal No. 2003-1070
Application 09/021,727
level. For a set of tasks with a complex priority
structure, we offer a method of analysis with an underlying
theoretical foundation. For simple task sets, our
contribution is a formalization of techniques currently
being used. Furthermore, the method shows that an increase
in schedulability can be achieved by taking advantage of the
high-priority execution of the final subtasks of a task.
The Examiner argues that Habour does not use the same
terminology but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to
recognize that the scheduler in Habour is equivalent to the timer
since it provides the invoking time for events. See page 8 of
the supplemental answer. There is no explanation provided as to
how Habour teaches or suggests “a plurality of action objects”,
“an action set object for processing the plurality of action
objects for invoking the set of events” and “a timer object for
receiving a notification from the action set object specifying an
earliest invoking time and sending a call-back to the action set
object at the earliest invoking time, wherein the action set
object causes the invoking of one of the referenced events
associated with said earliest invoking time upon receiving the
call-back from the timer object.” See Appellants’ claim 50.
Furthermore, we note that Appellants’ independent claim 56
recites similar and more detailed limitations.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007