Appeal No. 2004-2175
Application 09/086,627
For emphasis, in our reasoning we make note of the teachings
at column 7, lines 48-51, which is repeated essentially at column
8, lines 35-37, which teach essentially that it is the programmer
who specifies the required resources for each task, the specifics
of which are basically quantified according to resource manage-
ment principals associated with the resource manager 170 in
Figure 1 of this reference. Most significantly, as argued by the
examiner in the answer, is this teaching at column 8, lines
19-23:
In the present embodiment tasks have three
classes, error intolerant, error-tolerant realtime,
and non-realtime. To guarantee proper functioning
of error intolerant tasks, the resource manager must
reserve resources for the worst-case usage scenario
of these tasks (emphases added).
The significance of this is recognized at the middle of page
8 of the principal brief on appeal. The plain teaching here is
that the minimum resources are guaranteed for the highest
priority level(s) which obviously, within the context of the
quoted material, (is) are error intolerant tasks. We also, in
light of this quoted material, disagree with appellant's urging
at the top of page 2 of the reply brief that "the term [reserve]
is given a traditionally dictionary meaning. By definition, to
'reserve' resources is to set some resources aside or to keep
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007