Appeal No. 95-5030
Application 07/815,694
service queue, Miro would not have suggested circuitry which
maintains the order of transmission of information by storing
information indicating the order of receipt and sending such
information according to the order of receipt. In our view, the
argument is reasonable and the examiner has provided no response.
The appellants also note that neither Fava nor Miro
discloses or reasonably suggests incrementing the information
indicating the order in which the information was received. In
this context and in light of the specification, incrementing the
order means updating the order of receipt as new items come in.
According to the appellants, since neither Fava nor Miro store
the order in which information is received, neither updates that
stored information. Again, this argument appears reasonable. We
find that Miro's arbitration or control circuit is not simply the
FIFO service queue, but includes the prioritized holding queues.
With respect to all of the foregoing arguments regarding
Fava and Miro, the examiner has provided no response, except to
say, in an advisory Office action (Paper No. 8 at 3), that:
(B) Applicants argue on page 3
paragraph 2 that Fava et al nor Miro
discloses a "plurality of buffers for storing
information relating to data, the information
including information indicating the order in
which the information was received by the
control circuitry . . ." This is a basic
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007