Appeal No. 1998-0429
Application No. 08/537,187
brief at page 6.) Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach these limitations with
respect to the dependent claims. We agree with the examiner that determination of the
type of reads and snooping of the bus would have been done in the system of the
processor and integrated with the auxiliary processor. The language of claims 9 and 10
(along with claims 4 and 5) does not identify how the determinations are made or what
data is read. Therefore, we agree with the examiner that the general functionality of a
determination of reads and control of snooping would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue that the examiner has exercised hindsight reconstruction in
rejecting claims 1-10. We disagree with appellants. While the examiner’s rejection is
brief, it does set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed
invention and appellants have not shown evidence of nonobviousness nor have they
rebutted the prima facie case with secondary evidence. In our view, appellants are
interpreting the language of the claims more narrowly than the actual language of the
claims. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 6, and, since
appellants group all claims together, we will similarly sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 and
7-10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007