Ex parte HAN et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1998-2596                                                        
          Application 08/522,222                                                      

          Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as              
          a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.  See              
          Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686                   
          (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223                  
          USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d                
          1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).  Only those                      
          arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in               
          this decision.  Arguments which appellants could have made but              
          chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered [see               
          37 CFR                                                                      
          With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner                           
          indicates how he reads claim 1 on the disclosure of Jouppi.                 
          The examiner cites victim cache 52 as storing instructions                  
          which have been removed from the primary cache.  The examiner               
          notes that Jouppi does not teach that these instructions are                
          not referenced by the CPU, however, the examiner asserts that               
          the victim instructions of Jouppi are analogous to the                      
          prefetched instructions of the claimed invention.  The                      
          examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007