Ex parte CHANG et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-3273                                                            
          Application No. 08/397,910                                                      


          includes a computer in which a memory error address is stored                   
          in either a low priority or a high priority error queue, and                    
          the computer clock is disabled in response to a detected                        
          overflow in the high priority queue.  Claim 1 is illustrative                   
          of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:                              
          1.   A method for prioritizing and handling memory errors in a                  
          computer having a memory and a processing unit, the computer                    
          operating responsive to a clock, the method comprising the                      
          steps of:                                                                       
               detecting the occurrence of a memory error;                                
               identifying the type of memory error as either a first                     
          type or a second type;                                                          
               storing in a first error queue an address of the memory                    
          error if the error is a first type of error;                                    
               storing in a second error queue an address of the memory                   
          error if the error is a second type of error;                                   
               detecting an overflow if more than a predetermined number                  
          of addresses are stored in the second error queue;                              
               disabling the clock responsive to the detected overflow.                   
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                      
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:2                                 


               2May, Jr., PN 3,573,745, Giroir et al., PN 4,980,852, and Renault et       
          al., PN 5,471,510, are all cited in the prior art section of the Examiner's     
          Answer but were not applied in any rejection.  Therefore, we have not           
          considered them.                                                                
                                            2                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007