Ex Parte AULT et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1430                                                        
          Application 09/080,504                                                      

          The disclosed invention pertains to an information                          
          handling system having a plurality of interacting tasks.  More              
          particularly, the invention relates to a method and apparatus for           
          providing notification of abnormal task termination.                        
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   In an information handling system having a plurality of           
          interacting tasks, a method of providing for notification of                
          abnormal task termination, comprising the steps of:                         
               defining for each of one or more target tasks an affinity              
          list containing one or more entries for other tasks that interact           
          with the target task and are to be notified on abnormal                     
          termination of the target task;                                             
               in response to receiving an affinity request specifying a              
          target task and another task, adding an entry for the other task            
          to an affinity list defined for the target task; and                        
               in response to detecting abnormal termination of a target              
          task, notifying each other task contained in the affinity list              
          defined for the target task.                                                
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Tulpule et al. (Tulpule)      4,980,824          Dec. 25, 1990              
          Huras et al. (Huras)          6,125,401          Sep. 26, 2000              
          (filed Mar. 28, 1996)                                                       
          Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As                    
          evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Tulpule in view of              
          Huras.                                                                      



                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007