Ex Parte McKenney et al - Page 2

                  Appeal 2007-1600                                                                                         
                  Application 09/753,062                                                                                   


                         Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for efficiently                              
                  handling high contention locking in a multiprocessor system. “Locking”                                   
                  refers to the designation of one of the processors in a multiprocessor system                            
                  as the processor entitled to access shared memory resources at any particular                            
                  instant in time. In Appellants’ invention, the processors are organized in a                             
                  hierarchical manner, wherein granting of an interruptible lock to a processor                            
                  is based upon the hierarchy (Specification 1).                                                           

                         Claim 1 is exemplary:                                                                             
                         1.  A method for efficiently handling high contention locking in                                  
                  a multiprocessor computer system, comprising:                                                            
                         organizing at least some of the processors into a hierarchy;                                      
                         providing a lock selected from the group consisting of: an                                        
                  interruptible lock, and a lock which waits using only local memory;                                      
                  and                                                                                                      
                         processing the lock responsive to the hierarchy.                                                  
                         The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                              
                  appeal is:                                                                                               
                         Kermani   US 6,163,831  Dec. 19, 2000                                                             

                         Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                                      
                  anticipated by Kermani.                                                                                  
                         Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the processors or                              
                  agents of Kermani are not organized in a hierarchy as claimed by                                         

                                                            2                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013