Appeal No. 2003-1057
Application No. 09/138,380
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Arimilli and Allen further in view of Boyd.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Nov. 27, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Sep. 30, 2002) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that even if the combination of Arimilli and Allen were proper,
the combination would not teach or suggest “utilizing the [sic, requested] data prior to
receiving a response during the defined period for response” as recited in independent
claim 1. (See brief at pages 4-5.) The examiner maintains that even though Arimilli
does not teach this limitation, Allen teaches a bus adapter capable of utilizing the
requested data before receiving remote statue in order to reduce the latency. (See
answer at page 4.) While Allen does disclose at column 6, lines 16-28:
During a clock cycle 7 of system bus 20, BA 16 outputs a tag-matching
ReRun operation signal through system bus 20, in response to BA 16
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007