Appeal No. 2005-0973
Application No. 09/740,669
that “when the DMA is a component of a line card connected to a
bus, an in-flight packet can be a packet that is being sent out
on the bus by the line card. However, before the in-flight
packet is sent out on the bus, the in-flight packet can be first
scheduled in the DMA on the line card.”
Since the examiner has not convinced us of a reasonable
challenge to the instant disclosure, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 5-8, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Turning to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the examiner
contends that claim 9 describes an invention that is inoperative
and therefore lacks utility. In particular, the examiner asserts
that the shifting structure could not be embodied as a FIFO
device because a “FIFO device by definition is processed in a
very linear fashion. The first object added is the first object
removed, not allowing for shifting, or sorting” (answer-page 4).
In order to support a rejection based upon an alleged lack
of § 101 utility, the examiner must demonstrate that the claimed
subject matter is totally incapable of achieving any useful
result. Note Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
977 F.2d 1555, 1571, 24 USPQ2d 1401, 1412 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In
the instant case, the examiner has not demonstrated this.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007