Appeal No. 2006-2452
Application No. 09/797,872
later time. This elimination of a final response wait time enables the controller to
formulate a new command for a new target controlled device without having to
wait for a final response from the original target controlled device.
Our review of the disclosure of Kawamura finds no description of any
operation which could reasonably be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed
immediate transaction termination feature. As pointed out by Appellants (Brief,
pages 7-10; Reply Brief, pages 2-9), the receipt of an interim response from a
controlled device in Kawamura triggers the formulation of a “NOTIFY (CANCEL)
COMMAND” (Figure 3, Step ST 6) which then must be transmitted to the
controlled device for processing. As further illustrated in Kawamura’s Figure 3
and described at column 13, lines 8-58 of Kawamura, the command transaction
initiated by the controller device is not terminated (Step ST 4) until the controlled
device processes the “(NOTIFY (CANCEL) COMMAND” and sends back to the
controller device an “ACCEPTED” response (Step ST 7) or a “TIME-OUT” occurs
(Step ST 8).
We further agree with Appellants (Reply Brief, page 6) that, even if it is
assumed that in Nakamura the “NOTIFY (CANCEL) COMMAND” is transmitted
immediately to the controlled device upon receipt of an interim response by the
controller device, there is no immediate termination of the command transaction
sent from the controller device to the controlled device (Step ST 1). As pointed
out by Appellants (id.), Kawamura’s controller device must wait until the
controlled device processes the “NOTIFY (CANCEL) COMMAND” (Figure 4,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007