Appeal No. 2007-0340
Application 10/057,259
Unlike Claim 13, this claim does not require that the predetermined latency
period be compared to the length of time that a transaction indicator is stored in the
scoreboard. The “timing” and “initiating” steps in Claim 19 are therefore broad
enough to read on Eden, in which the network-system timeout period (the recited
“predetermined latency period”) is compared to the time it takes to receive a
“True” response from the queried device (the recited “selected duration”). If the
time it takes to receive a True response is substantially longer than the timeout
period, the querying device issues a timeout sequence in the form of a “False”
answer.
The rejection of Claim 19 and unargued dependent Claims 20-30 is therefore
affirmed.
Independent Claim 31 recites, inter alia, using a free-running timer to
initiate a time-out sequence if the transaction identifier remains in the scoreboard
substantially longer than the predetermined latency period of the timer. This
limitation distinguishes over Eden in the same way as the similar limitation in
Claim 13. The rejection is therefore reversed as to Claim 31 and dependent Claims
32-37.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by
Eden is affirmed with respect to Claims 1-12, 19-30, and 38-40 and reversed with
respect to Claims 13-18, 31-37, and 41-43.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013