Appeal 2007-1600
Application 09/753,062
races between processors. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 11,
20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.6
With respect to claims 12, 21 and 31, Appellants argue that there is no
teaching of maintaining a handoff flag for a group of processors to grant the
lock to a processor requesting an unconditional lock from a processor
requesting a conditional lock (Br. 10). We agree with Appellants. Kermani
teaches that super agent A may have access to the shared synchronous
memory whenever desired (FF 9), but does not teach or suggest
unconditional or conditional locks, or the handoff of locks from one
processor to another. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 12, 21
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-10, 13-19 and 22-29. Claims 1-10, 13-19, and 22-29 are
not patentable. We conclude that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 11, 12, 20, 21, 30, and 31. On the record before us,
claims 11, 12, 20, 21, 30, and 31 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 13-19, and 22-29 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 20, 21, 30, and 31 is
reversed.
6 We note the absence of a rejection of claims 11, 20, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
7 We note the absence of a rejection of claims 12, 21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013