Appeal No. 1998-1800
Application No. 08/430,453
In response, Appellants assert a lack of establishment by
the Examiner of a prima facie case of obviousness. In
Appellants’ view (Brief, pages 7 and 8; Reply Brief, pages 2-
4), not only is Olson completely silent as to the updating of
noncacheable locations during write operations, but the
skilled artisan, considering the entirety of Olson’s
disclosure, would be led away from any such write operation
updating.
After careful review of the Olson reference in light of
the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. While we do not
dispute the correctness of the Examiner’s generalized
assertion that the quest for accuracy in cache supplied data
would extend to write operations as well as read operations,
to accept the Examiner’s conclusions in the present factual
situation, we would have to improperly and selectively ignore
significant portions of the Olson disclosure. While it is
proper for an Examiner to consider not only the specific
teachings of a reference, but also inferences a skilled
artisan might draw from them, it is equally important that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007