Ex Parte CHO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2004

08881123 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CHAN-DONG CHO
_____________
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2 and 5 through 20. Claims 3 and 4 are directed to allowable
subject matter.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for controlling the access of a plurality of devices to a memory
based upon a predetermined priority order of the devices.
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An apparatus having a memory controller for
controlling access to a memory by a plurality of devices,
the apparatus comprising:
a priority order controller
to generate either
an acknowledgment signal to a
corresponding one of the plurality of devices in response to
a request signal generated by the corresponding device, or
the acknowledgment signal to the
corresponding device according to a predetermined priority
order if more than one request signal is simultaneously
generated from the plurality of devices, and
to subsequently deactivate the generated
acknowledgment signal if an access actuation signal is
deactivated,
wherein the access actuation signal is distinct from
the request signal and is issued by the memory controller to
indicate that one of the plurality of devices is accessing
the memory.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Craft et al. (Craft) 5,438,666 Aug. 1, 1995
Claims 1, 2 and 5 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Craft.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 31 and 34)
and the answer (paper number 32) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2 and
5 through 20.
We agree with the examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4) that
Craft discloses (Figures 4 and 5) a computer system 300 with a
shared address, data and control bus 318 that provides access to
a memory 314 and a bus arbitration control circuit 370 that
determines which of a plurality of devices 344, 348, 360, 362 or
364 is granted access to the shared bus based on priority, and
generates “either an acknowledgment signal to a corresponding one
of the plurality of devices in response to a request generated by
the corresponding device, or the acknowledgment to the
corresponding device according to a predetermined priority order
if more than one request signal is simultaneously generated from
the plurality of devices (see Fig. 4, bus arbitration control
circuit 370; BUS MASTER A[,] 350 BUS MASTER B[,] 352 BUS MASTER C
354; and the respective bus grant lines, as acknowledge signal
for the respective BUS MASTER; col. 11, lines 28-39; col. 14,
line 26 to col. 15, line 60).” The bus arbitration control
circuit 370 subsequently deactivates “the generated
acknowledgment signal if an access actuation signal is
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
4
deactivated (see col. 14, lines 43-54), here for example, see
Fig. 4, . . . and the deactivation of the DMA grant signal on the
DMA grant line 374B when the DMA controller 340, that controls
the floppy disk controller 344, deactivates the DMA request line
on the DMA request line 374A to indicate to the bus arbitration
control circuit 370 that the DMA operation is completed.” We
additionally agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that “the
access actuation signal is different from the request signal
. . . . ”
Based upon the foregoing, appellant argues (brief, page 8)
that the examiner has attributed the functions of both the
claimed priority controller and the memory controller to the bus
arbitration control circuit 370. In response, the examiner
agrees (answer, page 9) that “the DMA grant signal generated by
the bus arbitration control circuit 370 in response to the DMA
request to the bus arbitration control circuit 370, serves both
as the DMA ACKNOWLEDGMENT signal and ACCESS ACTUATION signal.”
If each grant output signal from the bus arbitration control
circuit 370 in Craft functions as both an acknowledgment signal
and an access signal, then we agree with the appellant’s
arguments (brief, page 9; reply brief, page 3) that a grant
output signal from the bus arbitration control circuit 370 is
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
5
never outputted to “subsequently deactivate the generated
acknowledgment signal if an access actuation signal is
deactivated” (claims 1 and 15). For this reason, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 15 is reversed.
Turning to claim 2, if the acknowledgment signal and the
access request signal in Craft are the same signal, then we agree
with the appellant’s arguments (brief, page 10; reply brief,
pages 4 and 5) that Craft can not “generate and transmit the
access request signal to said memory controller in response to
the generation of the corresponding acknowledgment signal.”
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 2 is reversed.
The anticipation rejection of claim 5 is reversed because we
agree with the appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 11 and 12;
reply brief, pages 5 and 6) that Craft does not disclose
“deactivating the acknowledgment signal after the access
actuation signal is deactivated” because the two noted signals
are a combined signal in Craft.
The anticipation rejection of claims 6, 16 and 17 is
reversed because Craft does not disclose activating an
acknowledgment signal after generating an access actuation signal
(brief, pages 11 and 12). As indicated supra, the two signals
are combined into a single signal in Craft.
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
6
The anticipation rejection of claims 7 through 12, 18 and
19 is reversed because Craft does not deactivate “the
acknowledgment signal upon the deactivation of the access
actuation signal” (brief, page 9). As indicated supra, the two
signals are a single signal in Craft, and are deactivated in
unison.
The anticipation rejection of claim 13 is reversed because
Craft does not “subsequently deactivate the generated
acknowledgment signal if the access actuation signal is
deactivated.”
The anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 20 is reversed
because Craft does not “generate and transmit the access request
signal to said memory controller in response to the generation of
the corresponding acknowledgment signal.”
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2 and
5 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/hh
Appeal No. 2003-2108
Application No. 08/881,123
8
STAAS & HALSEY, LLP
STE. 700
1201 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005