Appeal No. 96-1979
Application 08/041,770
processor contends to become the new master processor by attempting to write a tag on each
processor of the plurality of processors.
Even though not applied against independent claims 1 and 13, we consider Stiffler since it was
applied in combination with Ely with regard to the dependent claims. However, we do not find anything
within the disclosure of Stiffler which would provide for the deficiencies noted supra with regard to Ely.
Thus, while Stiffler does provide for a processor writing a tag to itself in a contention operation in
attempting to become the master processor [bottom of column 10 to the top of column 11], we find
nothing in Stiffler, and the examiner has not convincingly identified anything in Stiffler, which would
suggest each of the processors attempting to write a tag on “each processor of said plurality of
processors,” in a contention operation, as required by independent claims 1 and 13.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3 through 13 and 15 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007