Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
executing thread," which requires that an executing thread is preempted in
response to an interrupt operation, not may be preempted.
Patent Owner argues that "multithreading" does not require all threads
to be interruptible. While we disagree because such interpretation would be
inconsistent with "preemptive multithreading," even if that were true, the
'604 patent definition requires a plurality of threads to be interruptible.
Patent Owner argues that "multithreading" only requires one thread to
be interrupted. This is clearly inconsistent with the '604 patent's definition,
which requires that a plurality of threads are preempted.
(4) Thread
Patent Owner' definition of "thread" requires that "when interrupted, a
thread's context must be saved and retrievable when a thread is reassigned
control of the CPU and resumes execution." This definition does not imply
that interruptibility is an optional attribute of threads; all threads must be
capable of being interrupted. Nor does the definition imply that means to
save a thread's context when it is interrupted is optional. The attributes of a
"thread" are that: (1) it can be interrupted; and (2) there must be a
mechanism for the system to save and restore the thread's context. Each
thread must have its own thread context. If a set of instructions does not
have a "context" that can be saved and restored, it is not a "thread."
49
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013