Appeal No. 2007-0340
Application 10/057,259
THE CLAIMS
Claims 1, 13, 19, and 31 are independent clams, of which Claim 1 reads:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a scoreboard comprising a plurality of locations adapted to store
transaction identifiers each associated with a transaction, wherein each
transaction comprises a first client sending a request to a second
client, and wherein each transaction identifier includes a first timer
flag and a second timer flag; and
a device adapted to manage the plurality of transaction
identifiers in the scoreboard.
THE REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The sole reference relied on by the Examiner is:
Eden US 2002/0184361 A1 Dec. 5, 2002
(filed May 16, 2001)
Claims 1-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by
Eden.
THE ISSUE
Does Eden disclose the argued features recited in the rejected claims?2
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
2 Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in
the Examiner’s position. Cf. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [for obviousness] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013