Appeal No. 96-3359
Application 08/204,592
requires the distributed processors to snoop for cache
coherency.
We agree with appellants that Tipley’s teachings about
snooping the bus are too far removed from the centralized
systems of Tetzlaff and Chan to be properly combinable in an
obviousness rejection. Viewing the prior art as a whole, we
find no suggestion for the claimed invention utilizing a bus
supporting snooping, locking, and transferring ownership by
distributed processors.
The examiner’s reliance on Santeler, for the features of
dependent claim 24, do not cure the defects in the basic
rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejections are not sustained.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007