Appeal No. 95-4096
Application No. 08/188,660
said transactions being selected to enforce a consistency
protocol that ensures that all of said processors and all of
said I/O devices have access to consistent values for all data
stored in said cache memories, including all data represented
by said multiple copies.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Baxter et al. (Baxter) 4,535,448 Aug. 13,
1985
Dashiell et al. (Dashiell) 4,843,542 Jun. 27,
1989
Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 2 through 4
stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Dashiell in view of Baxter.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 2 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, we will not sustain
this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007