Appeal No. 96-1919
Application 08/097,438
1. A peripheral device for implementing a scalar interrupt-acknowledgment system that utilizes
a single interrupt indication when one or more events are detected, the peripheral device comprising:
a detector that detects said one or more events and that generates a plurality of increment
signals by generating an increment signal in response to each detected event; and
an unprocessed event counter that counts unprocessed events by incrementing an unprocessed
count in response to each increment signal, and by decrementing the unprocessed count by a value of a
processed count each time a processed count word is received where each processed count word
defines the processed count, that asserts an interrupt signal when the unprocessed count indicates that
an event remains unprocessed, and that deasserts the interrupt signal when the unprocessed count
indicates that all of the detected events have been processed.
4. A host device for implementing a scalar interrupt-acknowledgment system that utilizes a
single interrupt signal when a plurality of events are detected, the host device comprising:
a processor that processes the events detected by an external detector, that generates a
plurality of increment signals by generating an increment signal in response to the processing of each
detected event, and that generates a plurality of transmit signals by generating a transmit signal each time
a number of the detected events are processed; and
a processed event counter that counts a number of processed events by incrementing a
processed count in response to each increment signal, that transmits a plurality of processed count
words by transmitting a processed count word which represents the processed count in response to
each transmit signal, and that resets the processed count in response to the transmission of each
processed count word.
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness is:
Truchard et al. (Truchard) 5,313,622 May 17, 1994
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Truchard.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant with regard to the propriety of these
rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 7) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007