Appeal No. 1999-0288
Application No. 08/538,071 Page 12
register of Brantley with Wibecan would not teach or suggest the
claimed invention.
Appellants further assert (brief, page 15) that the examiner
admits that Wibecan does not specifically state the monitoring of
specific addresses being referenced, nor does Wibecan teach that
a bit within the machine state register is used to select the
specific process to be monitored.
Appellants (brief, pages 15 and 16) argue that:
In Wibecan, the processes, i.e., application
programs, capable of being monitoring must be
identified as such by an input argument to a
bit set routine to allow associating and setting
of a performance monitoring enabled bit with the
process (col. 6, lines 51-62). Thus, a controlling
process uses a bit set routine to associate a bit
with a process to allow monitoring of the process.
But, as admitted, there is nothing to teach or
suggest that a specific address with in a specific
process is monitored. Thus, there is nothing that
teaches or suggests that a machine state register
should be used for the performance monitoring
enabled bit to help ensure that the specific address
is monitored only within the specific process.
Appellants further argue (reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that
even if the teachings of Brantley and Wibecan were combined,
there is no teaching or suggestion of using multiple control
registers, including the machine state register as set forth in
the claimed monitoring scheme.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007