Ex Parte 5694604 et al - Page 54


                Appeal 2007-2127                                                                                  
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621                                                              
                and "multithreading" must be given their ordinary meanings in the art and                         
                Phillips v. AWH does not require otherwise.  The fact that Patent Owner is                        
                mistaken in his understanding that the embodiment disclosed in the                                
                specification can be described as "multithreading" does not justify giving                        
                "threads" and "multithreading" non-standard definitions.                                          
                       "Interruptible" means "capable of being interrupted" or "capable of                        
                being preempted."  It does not mean that a thread is always interrupted.  If a                    
                thread finishes its subtask before the end of a timeslice, it is not interrupted.                 
                However, an executing thread must be capable of being interrupted at the                          
                end of a timeslice.  Independent claims 1, 4, 6, 18, 22, 24, 26, 69, and 75 all                   
                require preempting an executing thread in response to each actuation of the                       
                interrupt operation, which can only happen if all threads are interruptible.                      
                Independent claims 10, 14, and 17 only recite interrupting execution of a                         
                first thread, but do not preclude interrupting execution of all threads, and                      
                Patent Owner contends that these claims cover conventional preemptive                             
                multithreading in which all threads are interruptible.  Independent claims 1,                     
                18, 22, and dependent claim 25 recite that the threads alternate and perform                      
                successive incremental portions of their respective subtasks, which requires                      
                that both threads are interrupted before finishing their subtasks.                                
                       The definition of "multithreading" as "concurrent asynchronous                             
                preemptive time-sliced execution of a plurality of threads of instructions                        
                located within the same software program," expressly requires that at least a                     
                plurality of threads are interruptible.  Since there are only two possibilities                   
                for threads in Patent Owner's invention, the compiler and editor, both (i.e.,                     
                all) must be interruptible to meet the Patent Owner's definition.  Moreover,                      
                one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret "preemptive multithreading,"                     

                                                       54                                                         

Page:  Previous  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013