Appeal No. 95-0665
Application 08/082,326
Frieder discloses that access to memory by the various
processors including execution and auxiliary processors are
granted on a "fixed priority basis". That would have
reasonably informed one with ordinary skill in the art that
some processors are higher ranked in priority as far as a
memory access is concerned. In our initial decision, we noted
that the concept of
an interrupt is not foreign in Frieder and pointed out that
Frieder specifically discloses interrupting an auxiliary
processor’s activities when an execution processor needs the
services of the auxiliary processor. We then concluded that
it would have been prima facie obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art that the memory access of a less privileged
processor can get interrupted by the memory access request of
a higher privileged processor and thus not get completed until
later. With an appreciation for interrupts, one with ordinary
skill in the art would have readily recognized that it is not
necessary that something not yet finished be allowed to
continue to the end if a higher priority activity is pending.
Nothing in the request for reconsideration persuades us that
our conclusion is incorrect.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007