Appeal No. 2004-2175
Application 09/086,627
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellant's positions, and to the answer for the examiner's
positions.
OPINION
As embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of claims
1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15 for the reasons set forth by the examiner in
the answer, but reverse the rejection with respect to claims 14
and 16, essentially for the reasons argued by appellant in the
brief and reply brief.
In considering appellant's arguments in the brief and reply
brief, they focus initially upon the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal based upon the feature recited
therein that the minimum resource allocation for the first or
high priority process must be guaranteed as urged initially at
the bottom of page 7 of the principal brief on appeal and
summarized in the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12 of the
principal brief on appeal. As to this feature, we disagree with
appellant's urgings between pages 7 and 12 of the principal brief
on appeal that the principal reference to Culbert does not teach
or suggest this feature.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007