Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 for the same reasons discussed supra with
respect to independent claim 10.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 15
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7-9, and 15 as
being unpatentable over Holm in view of AAPA. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim in this group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Regarding specific claim limitations, we note that Appellants
essentially restate arguments made previously with respect to AAPA and
independent claim 10. We note that we have found supra that AAPA
discloses isolating interrupt resources at a host bridge. Here, we note the
language of claim 1 merely requires the host bridge include functionality for
isolating interrupt resources. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner’s
proffered combination of Holm and AAPA teaches and/or suggests a host
bridge (Holm, Fig. 1, PCI Host Bridge 104 or 105 or 106) that includes
functionality for isolating interrupt resources (i.e., AAPA Bridge Chip 308
(Specification, Fig. 3), as discussed supra with respect to independent claim
10). Appellants further argue that Holm, considered separately, does not
teach “a plurality of input/output units connected to the host bridge” (Br. 17,
emphasis added). We disagree, noting again our construction of the recited
term “connected” as discussed supra with respect to independent claim 10.
Therefore, we find that Holm, as modified by AAPA, teaches and/or
suggests all the features of claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013