Appeal 2007-0959
Application 10/082,893
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Davis (Answer 3-4). Regarding
independent claim 1, Appellant argues that Davis does not disclose: (1)
transferring data from a host memory; (2) an Ethernet device; and (3)
processing data without sending the data from the host memory to an
embedded memory associated with an adapter that includes the Ethernet
device as claimed (Br. 11-12). Appellant emphasizes that Davis’ system
uses a configuration cycle to identify peripheral devices, but no data is
transferred to them (Br. 11). Appellant adds that nothing in Davis teaches
how information would be transferred to an Ethernet device without using
the embedded memory associated with an adapter that includes the Ethernet
device (Br. 12; Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner argues that Davis discloses transferring data from a
host memory as claimed since the host processor sends Type 1 commands to
the bridge to determine all devices connected to the PCI bus so that drivers
can be loaded to these devices (Answer 4-5). The Examiner also contends
that the PCI devices connected to the PCI bus 15 in Davis are “equivalent”
to those disclosed in Appellant’s Specification (Answer 5). The Examiner
also argues that the features upon which Appellant’s arguments rely (i.e.,
with respect to not transferring data to the adapter’s embedded memory) are
not recited in the claims (Answer 6).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
ISSUE
Has Appellant established that the Examiner erred in finding that the
disclosure of Davis anticipates the claims?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013