Appeal No. 95-5030
Application 07/815,694
obviousness ground of rejection. The arguments are based on the
following correct observations with regard to Fava and Miro.
Fava discloses a computer interconnect apparatus with a
distributor through which information is passed between a
plurality of elements. Fava does not disclose storing
information indicating the order in which information was
received. Instead, Fava discloses a round robin arbitration
scheme and does not send data in the order of receipt.
With respect to Miro, the appellants note that while Miro
discloses a FIFO service queue to store disk drive I/O requests
(column 7, lines 51-54), the inputs to the FIFO service queue are
taken from a set of ten (10) holding queues each having a
different assigned priority with respect to received I/O requests
(column 3, lines 37-68). The appellants note (Br. at 12) that a
request directed to a given disk drive is entered into the
particular holding queue having a service priority corresponding
to the priority class of tasks of such requests. In that regard,
see column 3, lines 41-44, of Miro. Items from the holding
queues are moved to the FIFO service queue on the basis of
priority classes rather than the time order of receipt in the
arbitration or control circuit. On that basis, the appellants
argue that although Miro's control circuit includes a FIFO
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007