Appeal No. 2003-1057
Application No. 09/138,380
being able to (or predicting it will be able to, within a predetermined
number of clock cycles) respond to the RD1 operation (output from
Processor A during clock cycle 1). In the illustrative embodiment, BA 16 is
able to respond to the RD1 operation after receiving a remote status
through bus 30 from one or more other devices (not shown) connected to
bus 30. Nevertheless, BA 16 is able to output the tag-matching ReRun
operation before receiving the remote status, for the purpose of reducing
the latency of responding to the RD1 operation on system bus 20.
The examiner maintains that the bus adapter 16 is “able to output the tag-matching
ReRun operation before receiving the remote status, for the purpose of reducing the
latency of responding to the RD1 operation on system bus 20.” The examiner then
maintains at pages 7-8 of the answer that the language of independent claim 1 is “broad
claim language” and that utilizing “the data” may refer to the antecedent data in the
preamble rather than “the requested data” since the prior use of data in Allen would not
necessarily correspond to “the requested data.” Appellants argue that the examiner has
taken an interpretation of the claim language which is unreasonable in light to the
disclosed invention. (See brief at pages 5-7.) Appellants argue that the proper basis for
a lack of definiteness would be a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
and the examiner has not applied such a rejection of the claims. We agree with
appellants that taking the claim as a whole, the claim phrase “utilizing the data” in line 6
is further limited by “prior to receiving a response during the defined period for
response” and the period for response is determined with respect to “receiving the
requested data before a defined period for response to the bus operation.” Therefore,
we find that taking the claim as a whole “the data” in line 6 should properly be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007