Appeal 2007-1576
Application 10/020,398
artisan would have readily recognized that this information would likewise identify
that the second information does not need to be sent from the second processor-
based system since the file is current in the first processor’s cache. Thus, though
not claimed, Maddalozzo does teach the second processor sending first information
so that it does not have to send second information.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not convinced
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to claims 2, 3, 8
through 15, and 18 through 22. Accordingly, under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii),
we group claims 2, 3, 8 through 15, and 18 through 22 with claim 1 and similarly
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 through 15, and 18 through 22.
Appellant’s have not presented separate arguments directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 7, 16, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As claims 5 through 7, 16, 17, and 23 are all ultimately dependent upon
claim 1, 12 or 22, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 7, 16, 17,
and 23 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013