Appeal No. 1997-0708
Application 08/196,618
May 16, 1996, (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "Br__") for
Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants group claims 1-5 together in one group and
claims 6-10 together in another group (Br11). However, since
the claims are not argued individually, the claims will be
treated as standing or falling together with claim 1.
Appellants argue that nothing in Thacker's two-level
cache mechanism renders Appellants' double snoop mechanism
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We agree. While
it is sometimes possible for claims to be interpreted broadly
to read on the prior art in a manner not anticipated by or
intended by an applicant, this is not such a case.
The obviousness rejection is based on a single reference.
Therefore, we would expect the differences between Thacker and
the claimed subject matter to be very slight and of the kind
that would be within the well known knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art of cache design. Thacker is
directed to cache checking and does have a cache structure
with tags, but otherwise does not come close to meeting the
claimed subject matter.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007