Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
does not address the claim language of generating "a best
arbitration request for a current fairness interval or a next
fairness interval, wherein the request is encoded with a priority
that identifies to which of the current fairness interval and the
next fairness interval the requests corresponds." The examiner
has not shown a request for arbitration during the current
fairness interval and a request for arbitration during the next
fairness interval. It appears that the requests in Haynie are
all requests for arbitration for a current fairness interval, not
for a next fairness interval. In any case, there is no "request
. . . encoded with a priority that identifies to which of the
current fairness interval and the next fairness interval the
requests corresponds." The priority in Haynie is strictly a
priority of devices within a fairness interval, not a priority
between current and next fairness intervals; see specification,
p. 7, lines 21-25. A system which only has a priority for
devices does not require a priority that indicates one of two
different fairness intervals. We find that Haynie does not teach
or suggest encoding for current and next fairness intervals.
As to the examiner's reliance on the 1394 Standard, which
the examiner states is discussed by appellants, nothing in
definition as a "period of time during which a node may transmit
a limited number of asynchronous packets" (EA9) is identical to
the definition in the specification (p. 2, lines 25-26).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007