Appeal 2007-1773
Application 10/107,776
Anderson is not concerned with “detecting a rejection, performing the
authorization analysis based on the identity of the issuing device, and
configuring the subject device to accept the retried memory access request”
(Br. 9).
We hereby reverse the rejection of record.
ISSUE
Does Anderson at least teach determining if an additional device is
authorized to access a subject device based on the identity of the additional
device?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Anderson teaches a system in which an access monitor 28 monitors
address signals from a CPU 10. The address signals from the CPU 10 are
for a subject device that the CPU seeks access to via the access monitor 28
(col. 7, ll. 43 to 47; col. 8, ll. 3 to 8). The address of the subject device is
decoded by the access monitor 28, and the access monitor uses the decoded
address to obtain from an associated tag memory the unique tag allocated to
that address (col. 7, ll. 47 to 49; col. 8, ll. 8 to 10). The unique tag is used to
open a gate associated with the subject device (col. 7, ll. 49 to 53; col. 8, ll.
11 to 16).
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013