Appeal No. 2007-0340
Application 10/057,259
Finally, the Examiner is correct to read the recited “device adapted to
manage the plurality of transaction identifiers in the scoreboard” on the GUI (Final
Office Action 3; Answer 15, para. C). Appellant argues that because the GUI lacks
control over the network-system timeout periods and does not provide any way to
detect or change their values, it does not manage the transaction identifiers, which
include the timer flags (Reply Br. 4). This argument reads too much into the term
“manage” in Claim 1. The claim does not require that the “device adapted to
manage the plurality of transaction identifiers in the scoreboard” have any control
over the duration of the timeout period.
For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the rejection of Claim 1 for
anticipation by Eden. Inasmuch as Appellant does not separately argue the merits
of dependent claims 2-12 and 38-40, we are also affirming the rejection with
respect to those claims. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Independent Claim 13 repeats the first paragraph of Claim 1 and additionally
recites:
a timer adapted to compare the length of time the transaction
identifiers remain in the scoreboard to a predetermined latency period;
and
a fill-code generator adapted to initiate a time-out sequence
when notified that at least one transaction identifier has remained in
the scoreboard for substantially longer than the predetermined latency
period.
The Examiner reads the recited “timer” on Eden’s network-system timeouts,
explaining that the term “time-out” is defined in Microsoft Press Computer
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013