Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
the process requires a separate save are for its registers."). None of the
applications discloses saving a stack.
Nevertheless, this rejection relies only on the definition of
"preemptive multithreading" in the '604 patent.
4. Examiner's rejection
As noted above, we affirm the part of the Examiner's rejection based
on the district court's reasoning in Reiffin v. Microsoft.
The Examiner's reasoning that Patent Owner did not introduce the
term "multithreading" until after the filing date of the 1990 application,
indicating that he did not have possession of the invention in 1982 (Final
Rejection 64-65 ¶ III.2), does not address the Patent Owner's argument that
the terms "thread" and "multithreading" were coined after the 1982
application, but are inherently supported by disclosure of the 1982
application. Thus, this reason is not persuasive and is not relied upon.
The Examiner's reasoning that the '603 patent does not disclose
necessary features of multithreading, such as "start," "stop," "communication
with each other," "synchronization," "serialize use of system resources,"
"close cooperation of threads," and/or interference of one thread by another
thread (Final Rejection 72-73 ¶ III.3(G)), does not clearly define properties
of "threads" or "multithreading." The first quotation relied upon by the
Examiner refers to "multitasking," not "multithreading," and, therefore, does
not establish multithreading properties even though multithreading is a type
of multitasking. The second quotation refers to the need for threads in
multithreading to cooperate very closely, and the third quotation refers to the
problem that threads can interfere with other threads, but the Examiner does
80
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013