Appeal 2007-1498
Application 09/944,776
II. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 15 is illustrative of the invention. It reads as follows:
15. A system for programmably allocating resources to ac-
commodate I/O transactions at I/O ports of a multiprocessor computer
system, the system comprising:
means for determining the number of devices being serviced via a
port,
at least one assembly identified for hot swapping,
means for copying the contents of cache memories associated with the
at least one identified assembly,
means for setting criteria for transactions at the port with respect to
the number of devices, and
means, responsive to the criteria, for assigning resources to the ports.
III. PRINCIPLE OF LAW
When the terms in the claims are written in a “means-plus-function”
format, one interprets them as the corresponding structure described in the
specification or the equivalents thereof consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 6. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ 1845, 1848
(Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc). To assist in interpreting means plus function
claims on appeal Appellants are to provide a mapping of the structure
disclosed in the specification to the claimed “means.” Rule (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(v)(2005))1 states:
1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the
time of the Appeal Brief.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013