Appeal No. 2005-0627 3
Application No. 09/749,432
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 13 and 15) and the answer (paper
number 14) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 30.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 10 through 12 and 15 through 17; reply brief, page 5)
that Batchelor fails to teach flushing data fetched for a first device from the buffer prior to
storing data for another device in the same buffer.
We disagree. Batchelor teaches (column 3, lines 56 through 64) that:
In current PCI [Peripheral Component Interconnect] art, if a read is
disconnected and another agent issues an intervening read request, then
any prefetched data maintained in the PCI buffer for the disconnected agent
is discarded. Thus, when the read disconnected agent retries the read
request, the PCI bridge will have to again prefetch the data because any
prefetched data that was not previously returned to the agent prior to the
disconnect would have been discarded as a result of the intervening read
request from another agent. (Emphasis added).
In view of the teaching in Batchelor of flushing/discarding the data for a first agent/device
from a shared buffer before inputting the data for a second agent/device, we will sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 30.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007