Appeal No. 1997-0300
Application 08/138,790
“unaligned” writes are “completely different from ‘misaligned’
writes and therefore there is no incentive to look to Shimp.”
Further, Appellants point out that Ardini does not address a
write across a 64 bit word boundary as Appellants claim.
On page 2 of the Examiner’s answer (answer), the
Examiner asserts that the combination of Shimp and Ardini
teach the claimed write buffer as “the two write accesses
generated by Shimp et al.’s system will cause Ardini Jr. et
al.’s system to allocate two write buffer entries, with each
containing the address of that memory word to which the data
in that buffer entry is destined.” On page 3 of the answer,
the Examiner asserts that Ardini provides the motivation of
enhanced performance by buffering of memory writes.
First, we must determine the scope of the claims.
We find that the scope of the independent claims includes a
microprocessor which writes data to memory through a write
buffer which temporarily stores the data. Further, the scope
includes that when there is a misalignment between the data
and the memory
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007