Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
Independent claim 10
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 as
being anticipated by AAPA.
Appellants argue the claimed “host bridge,” is a component that
corresponds only to the PCI Host Bridge (PHB) 306 in the AAPA, and not
to the specially designed bridge chip (i.e., Unique Bridge Chip 308) (Br. 11;
see also Specification, Fig. 3). Appellants assert that IOAs (i.e., I/O
Adapters 302 and 304) isolated by the specially designed bridge chip in the
AAPA are distinct from, and therefore cannot teach, IOAs isolated by the
host bridge as claimed (id.). Thus, Appellants conclude that AAPA does not
teach the claimed feature, “isolating the interrupt resources available to the
plurality of input/output units from one another at a host bridge” (id.).
Appellants further argue that AAPA does not teach the claimed
feature, “host bridge to which the plurality of input/output units are
connected.” Appellants note that AAPA shows the IOAs connected to the
specially designed chip 308, and not to PHB 306. Appellants conclude that
the claimed feature specifically calls for the input/output units to be
connected to the host bridge (id.).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Appellants are
arguing limitations that are not claimed. In particular, the Examiner broadly
construes the language “at a host bridge” to mean “near” a host bridge
(Answer, 14; claim 10). The Examiner further views PHB 306 and Bridge
Chip 308 (Specification, Fig. 3) as a single-unit host bridge (Answer, 14).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that in the context of an
electronic circuit, the word “at” means at a precise location, not a proximate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013