Appeal No. 2001-2351
Application No. 08/772,443
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Independent Claim 23
We will not sustain this rejection because Parks’ local
memory 324 is not a data buffer, and because we agree with
appellants that Parks does not teach a “list of requested data
transfers”.
At page 7 of the answer, the examiner avers that, in his
Description of the Relevant Art, Parks teaches a list of
requested data transfers at column 1, line 50, to column 2, line
5. This text in pertinent part teaches at column 1, lines 59-67
that,
a sector read request is transmitted by the host
processor 102 and is written into the host interface
register file 206 of bus bridge 120. Bus bridge 120
responsively asserts an interrupt to alert local processor
122 of the pending request. Local processor 122 subsequently
reads the pending request within the host register file
206…(emphasis added).
This is a teaching that there is one request for data in file
206; there is nothing in the text to indicate that there is a
list of requested data in the file.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Independent Claims 17, 19 and 26
We will not sustain the rejection of these claims because
Parks’ local memory is not a buffer, and because we agree with
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007