Appeal No. 2003-0186
Application No. 09/033,529
a guaranteed number of clock cycles in the monitoring window” precludes the
term “clock cycles” from being construed as the amount of time that a request
has been pending. Independent claims 15 and 29 contain similar limitations.
We next turn to analysis of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); cert. dismissed,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The Examiner has rejected Claim 1 over Barnaby et al. In considering
Barnaby et al. we find the following. Barnaby teaches a priority encoding
scheme that takes into account the different requirements of the various devices
(see abstract). Priority of a device’s request is determined using a priority
encoder, which performs the priority count accumulation (see column 15, lines
20-25). Each device has its own priority curve that shows the progression of the
priority count as latency changes (see column 17, lines 31-35, see also figures 2
and 5). This priority curve is calculated for each device based upon various
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007