Appeal No. 96-1259
Application 08/201,185
obvious to perform queue monitoring "separate from" the
modules 14a-i in light of Sindhu’s provision of a separate bus
arbiter 36 and separate bus controller 25. As just discussed
above, individual arbiters 35a-i as well as arbiter 36 act to
control overflow detection. And, more importantly, we find
that claim 1 on appeal does not specifically require that the
overflow detection function/hardware not be in the client
modules, or that the overflow detection function/hardware be
only be present in the means for determining. Appellants’
claim 1 on appeal does not require the presence of another
queue such as the disclosed scoreboard 178.
We cannot agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 3)
that claims 1 to 3 are non-obvious because the queue overflow
detection function has been duplicated and not just moved.
Although appellants assert that in order to function in a
central location the overflow system must duplicate the
modules’ contents, we note find that representative claim 1
does not require queue content duplication. We find that only
claim 4 on appeal requires queue content duplication. Broadly
set forth claim 1 on appeal merely calls for a bus controller
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007