Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
appellants' description of the 1394 Standard teaches generating
arbitration requests encoded with a priority for either a current
fairness interval or a next fairness interval, as claimed.
Therefore, we find the combination fails to teach or suggest
generating an arbitration request encoded with a priority that
identifies whether the request is for a current fairness interval
or a next fairness interval. The rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims 2 and 3, is reversed.
Claims 5-7
The examiner finds that Haynie fails to elaborate on marking
the priority requests (FR5). Thus, it appears that the examiner
finds that the combination of Haynie and Duckwall does not teach
"marking the request as a first priority if the request is for a
current fairness interval; and marking the request with a second
priority if the request is for the next fairness interval." The
examiner finds that Lemay discloses how to mark a request with a
highest and lowest priority, and concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the system of Haynie and Duckwall in view
of the procedures in Lemay (FR5). It is also stated that Lemay
discloses marking the priority for the current or next fairness
interval (EA10).
Appellants argue that Haynie and Duckwall both fail to teach
or suggest creating an arbitration request wherein priority is
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007