Appeal No. 1998-1113
Application 08/533,878
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the
invention.” Para-Ordance Mfg. V. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Frailong discusses the STBAR operations in col. 11, line
55, to col. 12, line 5. In this passage, Frailong discloses
that “processor 104 waits until all Store operations that were
issued to the External Cache of that processor prior to the
STBAR operations have completed execution before allowing
subsequent Store operations to appear on the processor bus . .
. all Store instructions issued before a STBAR instruction
must complete execution before any of the Store instructions
that were issued after a STBAR instruction.” The reference
clearly discusses the relationship between the order in which
instructions before the STBAR instruction and those appearing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007