Appeal No. 2002-1135
Application 09/416,497
or a next fairness interval (Br16). It is argued that Pritty
fails to cure the deficiencies of Haynie and Duckwall (Br17).
Claim 16 recites "the node to receive arbitration requests
for a current fairness interval and a next fairness interval from
other nodes in the topology" (emphasis added). Thus, claim 16
requires receiving two different kinds of requests, one for a
current fairness interval and one for a next fairness interval.
As discussed in connection with claim 1, Haynie does not teach a
request for a current and a next fairness interval, but at best
teaches a request for one fairness interval. Claim 17 recites "a
best arbitration request that is encoded with a priority that
identifies whether the request is for a current fairness interval
or a next fairness interval." Thus, claim 17 require requests be
encoded with a priority for a current fairness interval and a
next fairness interval. As discussed in connection with claim 1,
this is not taught by the combination of Haynie and Duckwall.
Pritty does not cure the deficiencies of Haynie and Duckwall.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 16 and 17 is reversed.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007