Appeal No. 95-0665
Application 08/082,326
(Paper No. 28), contending that claims 6-8 are patentable over
art.
In the request for reconsideration, the appellants point
out
that in column 26, lines 36-40 of Frieder, the reference to
granting access to the main store on a "fixed priority basis"
does not contemplate interrupting an already commenced but yet
unfinished memory access to accommodate a higher priority
memory access. The appellants refer to column 27, lines 31-49
of Frieder and state that once access to memory is granted
based on the fixed priority scheme, the access is completely
performed before the arbitration circuit is released for
granting the next access to memory.
The appellants have, evidently, misinterpreted our
opinion. We did not express the view that Frieder itself
discloses having a high priority memory access interrupt a low
priority memory access in mid-stream. Apparently, as pointed
out by the appellants, it does not. The rejection is one for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, not for anticipation under
35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007