Appeal No. 97-2470 Page 7
Application No. 08/201,817
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6, we find Heil fails
to teach the circuitry for providing an interval as claims.
The claims recite in pertinent part circuitry for providing
an interval during which a bus master on the second bus may
not gain access to the second bus after the second bus is
relinquished so that a sequence of retry operations causing a
thrashing condition on the first bus is not generated. (Spec.
at 26, 28.) Comparison of the claim language to the teaching
of Heil evidences that the reference does not teach the
claimed circuitry for providing an interval.
Heil teaches a retry scheme for eliminating deadlock on a
first bus containing transactions directed to a second,
unavailable bus. Col. 1, ll. 9-11. An interface circuit
connects the first and second buses. The interface circuit
includes logic for generating a busy signal when the second
bus
is busy and logic for generating a retry signal when the
interface circuit is addressed by a bus master while the
second bus is busy. Each bus master includes logic for
receiving the retry signal and relinquishing control of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007