Appeal No. 2004-1430
Application 09/080,504
Appellants respond that the dependent tasks of Tulpule do
not interact with the prerequisite tasks on which they depend
because interacting is not a synonym for interrelated.
Appellants also respond that the entity that Tulpule notifies of
a prerequisite task termination is the processor that runs the
dependent task and not the dependent task itself as claimed.
Appellants also still dispute that the examiner has provided a
reasonable motivation for the combination of Tulpule and Huras
[reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-15. Although we do not agree with several of appellants’
arguments in the briefs, we do agree with appellants that
Tulpule’s teachings do not relate to interacting tasks. The
examiner has simply asserted that the dependency relationship of
the tasks in Tulpule constitutes a teaching of interacting tasks.
As noted by appellants, the dictionary definition of interact is
to act upon one another. Thus, interaction requires some form of
reciprocal action between two things. The dependency
relationship described in Tulpule, however, does not fit this
definition because the dependent tasks in Tulpule do not act on
the tasks which must precede them. There is one way action only,
not reciprocal action.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007