Appeal No. 2003-0186
Application No. 09/033,529
as addressed above. On page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that Horan
et al. is relied upon to teach the limitations of “high priority advance graphics
port (AGP) cycles.” The examiner has not shown that Horan et al. teaches the
limitation of the non-expedite counter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as it contains the same deficiencies
as noted in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Next, we consider the rejection of claims 5, 6, 15-211 and 29-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barnaby et al and Hogg et al.
Appellants argue on page 10 of the brief that
Hogg does not disclose, suggest or render obvious monitoring non-
expedite requests using a non-expedite counter and processing the non-expedite
requests for a guaranteed number of clock cycles in the monitoring window.
Without keeping track of the non-expedite requests, Hogg cannot guarantee a
minimum number of clock cycles for the non-expedite requests. Hogg merely
discloses that if the maximum number of expedite requests has been exceeded,
then control is transferred to service any pending non-expedite requests.
(Underlining omitted.)
We agree. We find that Hogg et al. does teach a counter to monitor the
number of expedite requests granted over a measurement period, see column
21, line 36. However, we do not find that Hogg teaches a counter that counts the
amount of non-expedite requests granted over a measurement period.
1 While it is noted that appellants did not specifically argue the rejection of claims
15 to 21 the basis of the rejection and rationale for the rejection is the same as is
applied to claims 29-35. Accordingly, we construe the arguments directed to the
103 rejection of claims 29-35 as also being applied to claims 15-21.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007