Appeal No. 2004-1417
Application 09/365,784
process retaining the resource identifier of the terminated
process as its resource identifier. The examiner cites Harada as
teaching this feature. The examiner finds that the collective
teachings of the three applied references renders the claimed
invention obvious [answer, pages 4-7].
Appellants argue that there is no motivation or
suggestion in the references themselves or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art for
combining the teachings of Nakahara, Ikeda and Harada.
Appellants argue that the references relate to disparate arts and
solve completely unrelated problems. Appellants also argue that
Ikeda relates to multithreaded applications and not to processes
as claimed. Finally, appellants explain that even if the
teachings of the references are combined, the result would still
not meet the claim recitation that the second process retains the
second identifier of the terminated first process as its second
identifier [brief, pages 9-14].
The examiner responds by essentially repeating his
rationale for combining the references as set forth in the
rejection [answer, pages 11-17]. Appellants respond with a
detailed explanation as to why the examiner’s findings are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007