Ex parte COK et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-2692                                                           
          Application 08/310,892                                                       



                    (a) transmitting local data subsets simultaneously                 
          in both directions of the ring simultaneously from all proces-               
          sors in the ring; and                                                        
                    (b) transmitting foreign data subsets in a direction               
          of travel of the foreign data subsets around the ring until                  
          all processors in the ring have received the data set, whereby               
          a redistribution of the distributed data subsets that satu-                  
          rates the interconnection bandwidth, minimizes the number of                 
          operations, passes data the minimum distance necessary, and                  
          minimizes buffer memory requirements is achieved.                            
                    The Examiner relies on the following references:                   
          Neches et al. (Neches)          4,412,285          Oct. 25,                  
          1983                                                                         
          Allen et al. (Allen)            4,663,706          May   5,                  
          1987                                                                         


          Childs et al. (Childs)          5,250,943          Oct.  5,                  
          1993                                                                         
          Cok                             5,432,909          July 11,                  
          1995                                                                         


                    Claims 1, 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out                
          and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants                 
          regard as their invention.  Claims 1, 7 and 15 stand rejected                
          under                                                                        



                                          3                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007