Appeal No. 96-0905
Application No. 08/116,950
Claims 1 through 8, 11 through 14 and 16 through 26 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kolb in view
of Kreis.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
statement at page 6 of the principal brief, independent claims 1,
3, 5, 7 and 23 will stand or fall together, and dependent claims
12, 13, 18, 20, 21 and 26 will stand or fall together. Appellants
separately argue the merits of dependent claims 12, 13, 18, 20,
21 and 26 at page 12 of the principal brief and throughout the
briefs, arguing that the instant invention’s interrupt only on a
selected value registered by the counters distinguishes over the
applied references. However, dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11,
14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 25 will stand or fall with the claims
from which they depend since appellants make no separate argument
with regard to the specific limitations added by these claims,
i.e., with regard to the common memory modules and local memories
not accessible to other CPUs.
We also note that while Kreis is applied by the examiner for
the teaching of access requests to a common memory which are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007