Appeal No. 2004-1417
Application 09/365,784
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Since claims 1 and 4-12 stand or fall together as a
single group [brief, page 5], we will only consider the rejection
of these claims with respect to independent claim 1. The
examiner cites Nakahara as teaching resource deallocation when a
process is prematurely terminated, the examiner notes that
Nakahara fails to disclose a second process using the resource
identifier of the first process to continue the functions of the
terminated process as claimed. The examiner notes that Nakahara
accounts for certain types of premature termination, but not for
all of them. The examiner finds, therefore, that there is a need
for a method that allows a subsequent process to complete the
functions of the terminated process. The examiner cites Ikeda as
teaching a plurality of threads wherein one thread assumes the
resources and context of a terminated thread. The examiner finds
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to combine the
teachings of Nakahara and Ikeda so that the terminated processes
of Nakahara can be completed as taught by Ikeda. The examiner
notes that this combination still does not teach the second
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007