Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
priority changes to highest priority every time the position of
the node is reset, referring to column 2, lines 50-58 (FR7). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Haynie and Lemay with the priority change
arrangements of Whipple "so that second priority request can be
updated to a first priority request in response to an arbitration
reset token" (FR7).
Appellant argues Whipple does not cure the deficiencies with
respect to parent claim 5 (Br14). We agree with appellants for
the reasons stated in connection with claim 1 and, in any case,
the examiner does not rely on Lemay for the current and next
fairness interval limitations. Since we find that the
combination of Haynie, Duckwall, and Lemay fail to teach or
suggest marking the request as a first priority if the request is
for a current fairness interval and marking the request as a
second priority if the request is for a next fairness interval,
Whipple would need to teach these limitations in addition to the
updating limitations of claim 8, which is does not. A general
teaching of updating a priority does not meet the specific
limitation of "updating a second priority request to be a first
priority request in response to an arbitration reset token." It
is also argued that Whipple does not update a priority request in
response to an arbitration token as recited in claim 8 (Br14-15).
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007