Appeal No. 1997-4350 Page 6
Application No. 08/574,848
artisan to recognize that more “flexibility” and “higher bus
performance” would ensue if the duplicate cache tag store of
Milia would be connected directly to the I/O bus. It is only
appellants’ disclosure which teaches the advantages, viz.,
minimized traffic on the system bus and the CPU bus, achieved
by connecting the duplicate cache tag store directly to the I/O
bus. Thus, in our view, even if a duplicate cache tag store
could be considered an I/O unit, it would not have been
obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, to have placed
the duplicate cache tag store of Milia directly on the I/O bus
(rather than on the system bus as taught by Milia), merely
because Hartwell shows an I/O unit connected directly to an I/O
bus, without some suggestion for doing so.
Moreover, the examiner’s reasoning is faulty because, as
argued by appellants, a duplicate cache tag store is, in fact,
not an I/O unit. An I/O unit is an element which inputs or
outputs data, such as a disk storage device, a printer, a
keyboard, a mouse, etc. A duplicate cache tag store is not
such a device for inputting or outputting data. Therefore,
without the hindsight gleaned from appellants’ disclosure,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007