Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
We agree with this argument. For these reasons, the rejection of
claims 5-7 is reversed.
Claims 16 and 17
The examiner finds the circuit to generate an arbitration
request encoded with a priority, as recited in claim 17, is
discussed in connection with claim 1 (FR7). The examiner relies
on Pritty to show multiple nodes coupled by transceivers to a bus
organized into a tree topology, having a master polling node
capable of generating a master timing signal (FR7-8). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Haynie and Duckwall in view of Pritty to institute a tree
topology of nodes and the nominal root node receiving arbitration
requests encoded with a priority (FR8).
Appellants argue that Haynie and Duckwall both fail to teach
or suggest a node which receives arbitration requests for a
current fairness interval and a next fairness interval from other
nodes in the topology, as recited in claim 16 (Br15). It is
argued that Pritty fails to cure the deficiencies of Haynie and
Duckwall (Br15). Appellants further argue that Haynie and
Duckwall both fail to teach or suggest a circuit to generate an
arbitration request that is encoded with a priority that
identifies whether the request is for a current fairness interval
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007