Appeal No. 2007-0340
Application 10/057,259
Dictionary (3d ed. 1997) as: “An event that indicates that a predetermined amount
of time has elapsed with out [sic] some other expected event taking place”
(Answer 17). Appellant argues that the predetermined latency periods of Eden’s
network-system timeouts are not compared to the length of time that transaction
identifiers remain in the scoreboard, as required by the claim (Br. 9; Reply Br. 6).
We agree. The predetermined latency period of the network-system timeout is
instead compared to the time it takes for the querying device 102 to receive a
“True” reply from the queried device.
The rejection of Claim 13 and its dependent Claims 14-18 and 41-43 is
therefore reversed. The rejection of these claims is also being reversed for another
reason, which is that the Examiner’s discussion of the rejection of Claim 13 (Final
Action 5; Answer 7 and 16-17, para. D) fails to explain how the recited “fill-code
generator” reads on Eden. This limitation is argued at page 9 of the Brief and thus
should have been addressed by the Examiner.
Independent Claim 19 reads:
19. A method, comprising:
storing at least transaction identifier in at least one of a plurality
of locations in a scoreboard, wherein the at least one transaction
identifier is associated with a transaction, wherein each transaction
comprises a first client sending a request to a second client in a
system, and wherein each transaction identifier includes a first timer
flag and a second timer flag;
timing a selected duration; and
initiating a time-out sequence if the selected duration is
substantially longer than a predetermined latency period.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013