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
§ 1.192(a)].
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007