Appeal No. 2005-2282 Page 15
Application No. 09/505,807
video resolution of data being streamed teaches performing a registration process with
a scheduler as claimed. Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 4 and of
claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 24, and 25, which fall therewith.
D. CLAIMS 8, 20, AND 27
The examiner asserts, "Woodring clearly discloses prioritizing data consumption
based on the amount of unread data. Each buffer (queue) holds an amount of unread
data represented by the buffer size 368 (col. 7, lines 32-35). The consumers in turn
read out this amount of unread data (col. 7, lines 13-35)." (Examiner's Answer at 21.)
He adds the following assertions.
[O]nly when the last consumer assigned to a particular buffer releases the
buffer after reading this amount of unread data will the buffer mask be set
to zero (cleared), thereby allowing the buffer to become available for other
data consumption (e.g., different consumers) (see e.g., col. 7, line 60 - col.
8, line 5). Therefore, the storage manager (scheduler) prioritizes data
consumption by keeping the buffer allocated to a consumer based on an
amount of unread data (buffer size) being present in the queue (col. 7,
lines 13-35). That is, if there is an amount of unread data in the buffer,
then the scheduler will prioritize data consumption by keeping the buffer
allocated to the consumer.
(Id. at 21-22.) The appellants argue, "There is simply no reasonable basis for
construing such teaching as 'prioritizing data consumption'. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 11.)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007