Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
The examiner relies on the following references:
Whipple 4,926,419 May 15, 1990
Lemay et al. (Lemay) 5,142,682 August 25, 1992
Haynie 5,276,887 January 4, 1994
Pritty et al. (Pritty) 5,434,861 July 18, 1995
Duckwall 5,802,048 September 1, 1998
(filed August 1, 1996)
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haynie and Duckwall.
Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haynie, Duckwall, and Lemay.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haynie, Duckwall, and Lemay, further in view of
Whipple.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haynie, Duckwall, and Pritty.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1-3
The examiner finds that the abstract of Haynie teaches
assigning a priority level to each bus request signal (FR3), but
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007