Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
marked as a first priority if the request is for a current
fairness interval or as a second priority if the request is for a
next fairness interval (Br12). We agree with appellants for the
reasons stated in connection with claim 1 and it appears that the
examiner also agrees with this statement. It is argued that
Lemay fails to cure the deficiencies of Haynie and Duckwall
(Br12-13). We agree. Lemay may teach marking a request with a
priority, it does not teach that the priority identifies a
current or next fairness interval. In addition, the priority
being marked is strictly a priority which might be considered
within a fairness interval, not a priority between current and
next fairness intervals; see specification, p. 7, lines 21-25.
We find that the combination fails to teach or suggest a
request for a current or next fairness interval, much less
marking the request as having a certain priority based on whether
it is for a current or next fairness interval. The rejection of
claims 5-7 is reversed.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends on claim 5 and recites "updating a second
priority request to be a first priority request in response to an
arbitration reset token." The examiner finds that neither Haynie
nor Lemay mentions the recited limitation (FR6-7). The examiner
finds that Whipple discloses a priority apparatus in which
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007