Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
mutually interleaved relation and with each thread executed during its
respective series of spaced timeslices interleaved with the timeslices
of at least one other thread.
For example, independent claim 1 recites "preempting an executing
processing thread . . . after [it] has executed only a portion of its respective
subtask," passing control to another processing thread "to perform a next
successive portion of the respective subtask," with "the subtask portions of
one processing thread interleaved with the subtask portions of at least one
other processing thread." Independent claims 18 and 22 recite "each thread
executing successive incremental portions of its processing task . . . during
successive timeslices of a respective series of spaced timeslices." Claim 25,
which depends on claim 24, recites "the task of each thread is executed
piecewise with the successive task portions of each thread interleaved with
the successive executed task portions of at least one other thread." One
consequence of these limitations is that two threads must be interrupted after
finishing only a portion of their respective subtasks.
Many of the claims recite preempting an executing thread in response
to each actuation of the interrupt operation. For example, claim 1 recites
"preempting an executing processing thread of said program in response to
each actuation of said interrupt operation." Claim 4 recites "interrupting the
execution of an executing processing thread . . . and preemptively taking
control of the microprocessor away from said executing instruction thread
in response to each said activation of said interrupt input"; claim 6 is
similar. Claim 18 recites an "interrupt service routine responsive to each
said clock actuation of the interrupt operation to preempt an executing
processing thread . . . so as to terminate its timeslice of execution"; claim 22
51
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013