Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
does not teach an arbitration state machine, ports, and transmit
and receive means (FR3-4). The examiner finds Duckwall teaches
an arbitration logic state machine for the P1394 bus standard, a
transceiver, and a port (FR3-4). The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious "to have modified [the] device disclosed
by Haynie by incorporating the teachings of Duckwall, in order to
generate an arbitration request encoded with a priority level
such as described in application claim 1 herein" (FR4).
Appellants argue that neither Haynie nor Duckwall teaches or
suggests creating an arbitration request wherein priority is
based on whether a request is for a current fairness interval or
a next fairness interval (Br6-7; Br10-11).
The examiner responds (EA9):
On page 7, Appellants argued that cited reference
(Haynie) does not teach or suggest "creating an arbitration
request wherein priority is based on whether a request is
for a current fairness interval or a next fairness
interval."
As is well understood by those ordinarily skilled in
the communication art that a user sends an arbitration
request to the central site, the central site assigns the
priority for the data to be transmitted in the next fairness
interval. This basic structure is fully addressed in the
IEEE Standard for a High Performance Serial Bus, IEEE
standard 1394-1395 and covered in detail by the Appellant as
Related Art.
The cited reference (Haynie) teaches the same concept
of receiving a request signal and assigning a priority level
for the next period of time during which a node may transmit
a limited number of asynchronous packets [ a definition of
'fairness interval' from Newton's Telecom Dictionary] . An
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007