Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
Opinion
With respect to claim 1, the examiner acknowledges that Truchard does not explicitly give
details about decrementing an unprocessed count by the value of a processed count and contends that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an arrangement in Truchard’s
apparatus because it would have allowed the system to decrement the unprocessed event count
whenever an unprocessed event is processed.
As to claim 4, the examiner states that Truchard does not teach transmitting a processed count
word which represents a processed count in response to a transmit signal, and resetting the processed
count in response to the transmission of each processed count word, and has taken the position that it
would have been obvious to provide apparatus in Truchard’s system for accomplishing these functions
because it would have allowed the system to efficiently keep track of the number of events which are
processed, thereby increasing the overall performance of the system.
With respect to the only other independent claim, claim 15, the examiner merely makes
reference to his positions with respect to claims 1 and 4.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4-8 and 15. With respect to claim 1, Truchard
neither counts unprocessed events nor decrements an unprocessed count by the value of a processed
count. Contrary to the examiner’s position in the final rejection, Truchard’s system
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007