Appeal No. 96-1319
Application 07/934,982
Claim 15 recites a system which has a bus arbitrator, a bus request external lead
and a bus grant external lead. The examiner observes that Nicoud discloses bus
arbitration [answer, page 12]. Appellants argue that the mere disclosure of bus arbitration
does not disclose or suggest the specific functions of claim 15 [reply brief, page 5].
We agree with the position of the examiner. There are no specific functions recited
in claim 15. Instead, claim 15 merely recites that the external leads of the integrated circuit
include a bus request lead and a bus grant lead for controlling a bus arbitrator. The artisan
familiar with the computer arts would have understood that bus arbitration in computers
was conventional whenever there is contention for use of a bus. Since the smart memory
resulting from the teachings of Nicoud, Witt and Nusinov is connected to a host external
processor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide
leads for the external processor to take control of the system bus of the smart memory.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-7 and 9-16,
but we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3 and 8. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-16 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007