Appeal No. 2004-1430
Application 09/080,504
objects which interact with the target task, whereas in Tulpule,
the notification relates to normal completion of a task and the
notification is sent to processors having tasks which have not
yet run. Appellants assert that the dependancy relationship of
the tasks in Tulpule do not interact in the manner claimed. With
respect to Huras, appellants argue that although Huras detects
the abnormal termination of a task, Huras does not provide for
notification of the surviving task as claimed. Specifically,
appellants argue that Huras performs a detection as opposed to a
notification. Finally appellants argue that the examiner has not
provided a reasonable motivation for combining the teachings of
Tulpule and Huras [brief, pages 7-10].
The examiner responds that Tulpule is relied on for the
teaching of a task interdependency list that alerts related tasks
of the completion or termination of a target task. Thus, it is
the position of the examiner that the dependency relationship of
the tasks in Tulpule teaches tasks that interact with each other.
The examiner also responds that Huras teaches the concept of
conveying abnormal task termination to another task. The
examiner maintains his position that the artisan would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Tulpule and Huras [answer,
pages 5-8].
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007