Appeal No. 2005-2282 Page 10
Application No. 09/505,807
mechanism 314, and producer FBSEM mechanism 316 except that the interface is for
the consumer side." Id. at ll. 14-19. As applied to the claim, we find that the mail
slots 340, the consumer MUTEX mechanism 324, and the FBSEM mechanism 326 are
used to control the consumers to consume data from the queue 372. Therefore, we
affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 16 and of claims 1, 9-15, and 21-23, which fall
therewith.
The appellants present no different arguments concerning claims 7, 19, and 26.
Instead they assert "without elaboration, it is clear that each of the obviousness
rejections are legally deficient on their face because Woodring fails to disclose claim
elements of claims 1, 16 and 23 as [argued] above." (Appeal Br. at 11.) Having been
unpersuaded by their abovementioned argument, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 7, 19, and 26.
B. CLAIM 3
The examiner argues, "the storage manager 350 (scheduler) of Fig. 4 would be
generic to Fig. 1, and thus manage any producer-consumer . . . including
the first and second queues. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 20.) The appellants argue,
"Woodring clearly does not disclose or remotely suggest that the storage manager (350)
of the IPC channel (330) controls or otherwise manages a second queue, much less
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007