Appeal No. 2006-0721 Page 9
Application No. 10/113,458
response to a change in the resources allocated to the first device. Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-4, 8-11, 15-18, and 22-24, which fall therewith.
B. CLAIMS 5-7, 12-14, 19-21, AND 25-30
The examiner finds, "MROMB Note discloses . . . determining, by the first device
(i.e. IOP), whether a change has occurred to a first set of resources (i.e. address range)
associated with the first device (i.e. host relocates the base address originally assigned
to the IOP BAR), wherein the second device is associated with a second set of
resources comprised in the first set of resources (section 4.1). . . ." (Examiner's Answer
at 4.) The appellants do not address the examiner's specific application of Section 4.1
of the MROMB Note. Instead, they merely underline limitations is claim 5 and allege,
"These specific combinations of limitations of the independent claims are nowhere
disclosed or suggested in the MROMB Note." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 5 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "prior to the enabling of
the second device to perform the one or more pending operations, determining, by the
first device, whether a change has occurred to a first set of resources associated with
the first device." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction,
the limitations require a first device to determine whether resources allocated thereto
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007