Appeal No. 95-0692
Application 07/755,237
Finally, the examiner’s attempt to correlate certain
language of representative independent claims 1 and 4 on
appeal to the specific teachings of each reference fails to
convince us of a proper correlation. With respect to the
claimed priority logical functions, as in the representative
independent claim 4 above, this logic means can reserve its
own requesting source’s default data bus for request of data
transfer only when all of the plurality of data buses are
available. Otherwise, such is stated to be delayed if all of
the plurality of data buses are not available, and such occurs
only when the token is passed to the requesting device and at
least one of the data buses does eventually become available.
The end of each independent claim recites further that the
priority logic means must, upon receipt of the token by the
requesting source, attempt to first reserve the requesting
source’s default data bus, but, if such a default bus is not
available, the priority logic means must then attempt to
reserve an alternate data bus. We do not see all of these
features to be reasonably taught or suggested to the artisan
from both references relied upon within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007