Appeal No. 96-1259
Application 08/201,185
and a means for determining (i.e., overflow detection) as
being "separate from said modules," and does not require that
the hardware be duplicated in the client modules and the means
for determining. We agree with the examiner (Answer, pages 2
and 4) that the present invention of claim 1 on appeal is not
specifically drawn toward or limited to centralization and
that no specific details exist in the claims which relate to
centralization as opposed to decentralization of overflow
detection.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, appellants have
not made any separate arguments as to these claims. Since
appellants present no separate arguments as to claims 2 and 3,
these claims fall with parent claim 1, discussed supra.
Rejection of Claim 4 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
We turn next to the question of the obviousness of claim
4 under § 103. Dependent claim 4 on appeal recites the
details of a main (i.e., centralized) memory having its own
instruction queue as well as a buffer for storing coherent
transaction information. Appellants argue (Brief, page 3)
that this duplicate hardware (the instruction queue and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007