Appeal No. 2006-1056
Application No. 10/606,514
While appellants assert that the examiner is not clear as to
how the reference is being applied against the claims, in our
view, these claims are merely saying that if the temperature is
not in excess of a certain threshold, then access requests need
not be controlled, i.e., reduced, so the access requests need not
be processed with an access request budget, which would reduce
the number of accesses in order to reduce the temperature of the
device. Nizar clearly discloses the relationship between the
number of accesses and the temperature of the device, where no
control over the number of accesses is asserted if the device is
in no danger of exceeding its thermal specification. That is, no
budgeting of accesses is required unless there is a danger of
exceeding the thermal specification of the device.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 3, 15,
and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 28, these claims recite the
counterpart of what is recited in claims 3, 15, and 27. That is,
the request is processed in accordance with the imposed access
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007