The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board. Paper No. 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM C. ALEXANDER III, SHREEKANT S. THAKKAR, PATRICE L. ROUSSEL, THOMAS HUFF, BRYANT E. BIGBEE, and STEPHEN A. FISCHER ____________ Appeal No. 2004-0909 Application No. 09/053,398 ____________ ON BRIEF ____________ Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and LEVY, and, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A patent examiner rejected claims 1-26. The appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse. BACKGROUND The invention at issue on appeal saves and restores a processor's state during a context switch. In multitasking operating systems, the use of a processor is commonly transferred from one task to the next. A task may be postponed, deferred, or canceled.Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007