Appeal No. 2006-3044 Page 8
Application No. 10/285,939
The examiner acknowledges that Harriman’s read response data
occupies one or more buckets 272 of RDRB 270, depending on the size of
the data block requested by the read command (col. 5, lines 57-59) [id.].
However, the examiner maintains that each bucket of the plurality of
buckets is uniquely assigned to one of the command tags, even though one
or more buckets might be assigned to a particular command tag (i.e.,
depending on the size of the data block requested by the read command)
[id.]. The examiner points out that the language of the claim merely
requires: “a plurality of buffer elements each being uniquely assigned to one
of said command tags” [id.]. The examiner notes that the claim does not
recite: “a plurality of buffer elements each being assigned to a unique one of
said command tags” [id.]. The examiner concludes that Harriman does not
teach away from the instant claimed invention [answer, page 19].
In the reply brief, appellants point to pages 8 and 9 of the instant
specification as supporting appellants’ claim interpretation [reply brief, pages
3 and 4]. Appellants assert that Harriman teaches a buffer having a plurality
of buckets that provide general storage to commands and data based on
availability, but not based on unique assignments [reply brief, page 5].
Appellants again assert that Harriman teaches away from the instant
claimed invention by disclosing multiple buckets that may be associated with
a single command tag [id.].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007