Appeal No. 2002-0278
Application 08/797,674
data packets from the response information when the system
resources are available. See page 8 of Appellants’ brief.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s assertion that the TX and RX
FIFOs of Tan read on these claims limitations is in error.
Appellants argue that the Examiner utilizes unreasonable broad
interpretation of the claim limitation. Appellants argue that
the Examiner’s analysis must consider the words “request” and
“response.” Appellants argue that response information and
request information are known in the art to facilitate
distributed processing protocols for accessing remote information
associated with hardware level system resources such as shared
memory. See page 9 of the brief. Appellants further argue that
the specification explicitly defines the terms “request” and
“response.” Appellants argue that Appellants’ specification
defines these terms on page 8, line 15, and page 7, lines 19
through 20. See page 10 of Appellants specification.
Appellants argue that Tan teaches that the TX and RX FIFOs
are to buffer information generated by higher layer communication
program protocols. Appellants argue that thus it is apparent
that Tan does not disclose the distributed processing request and
response protocols utilized to access system resources at the
hardware level. See page 10 of Appellants’ brief.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007