Appeal No. 1998-2749
Application 08/637,062
we conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 15. The rejection
of claim 15, and its dependent claims 16-18, is reversed.
There is a potential question whether the limitations of
claims 15-18 are inherent in Hausman. The data transfer operation
between the adapter 10 and the host processor in Hausman (non-DMA
mode) is normally performed by programmed I/O (PIO) and, so, it
seems there inherently must be structure within blocks 160, 180,
and 200 that generates addresses to allow the host to read data
frames as recited in claim 15. Further, since Hausman loads
(writes) data into buffer 170, unloads (reads) data during a DMA
mode, and reads data during a host PIO mode, and since memories
can only write information from a single source or read
information to a single destination at one time, it seems that
Hausman inherently must have a multiplexer and memory arbitrator
to read/write during these three modes as recited in claims 16-18.
However, the rejection is not based on inherency and, in the
absence of evidence, we decline to raise a new ground of
rejection.
Claim 21
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007