Appeal No. 97-1213 Page 5
Application No. 08/459,561
required by the claim. Again, had the claim required “before
the computer bus transmits any request for said n+1th datum,”
this would have precluded the first read ahead command from
the device driver since that command would have had to be
transmitted by the computer bus.
Thus, we do not read claim 51 as precluding the situation
wherein the anticipatory read ahead command from the device
driver over the computer bus causes the n+1th datum from being
stored in the adapter cache and, when, and if, the actual
command comes from the computer to read the n+1th data, it can
be reasonably said that the n+1th datum has been read and
stored from the peripheral bus into the interface (adapter)
device “before said computer bus transmits a request [i.e.,
the actual request, as opposed to the read ahead request] for
said n+1th datum...”
Claim 52 falls with claim 51 as there is no separate
argument by appellant as to the merits of the additional
limitation of claim 52.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 51 and 52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007