Appeal No. 1996-2195
Application 08/120,911
by Appellants. However, the Examiner does point us to Segers
and
shows that Segers teaches a computer system which comprises a
central processing unit (10) and a cache memory system (24)
having a primary cache (26) and a second cache (28), wherein
the central processing unit (10) sends out a read request to
the cache memory system (24). The cache memory system (24)
determines whether there is a hit in the primary cache or the
secondary cache in a parallel operation. The Examiner points
to column 3, lines 57 through 60, and column 4, lines 10
through 13. The Examiner argues that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to provide the common memory request to
both the central cache and the I/O cache in Watkins in view of
Segers because Segers teaches that this would improve system
performance.
Appellants argue on pages 18 through 20 of the brief
that the Examiner improperly modified Watkins in view of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007