Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
arbiter determines and stores, in memory, the request signal
having highest priority (see Abstract).
Appellants argue that this is a new argument which was not
previously discussed in the final rejection (RBr1). It is argued
that the combination of Haynie (in light of the 1394 Standard)
and Duckwall fails to teach generating arbitration requests for
either of a current fairness interval or a next fairness interval
as indicated by an encoding in the arbitration request (RBr1).
It is argued that Haynie teaches prioritization based on whether
devices follow a two-wire protocol or a three-wire protocol, with
no teaching of generating arbitration requests for either a
current fairness interval or a next fairness interval (RBr1-2).
Appellants argue that the 1394 Standard can only generate
arbitration requests for a current fairness interval and is
unable to generate and accept arbitration requests for a next
fairness interval until the next fairness interval begins (RBr2).
It is argued that the examiner only relies on Duckwall for the
state machine, transceiver, and port and that Duckwall does not
cure the deficiencies regarding Haynie (RBr2).
The examiner's statement of the rejection in the final
rejection and the examiner's answer is conspicuously lacking in
any discussion about the "current fairness interval" and the
"next fairness interval." The examiner response to the arguments
quoted, supra, asserts that it was known to assign a priority for
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007