Appeal No. 1998-1800
Application No. 08/430,453
Appellants (Reply Brief, page 6), the left branch of Olson’s
Figure 5 split-mode flow diagram indicates that reads as well
as writes are inhibited (as indicated by the RAM# designation)
to noncacheable locations.
In our opinion, since all of the claim limitations are
not taught or suggested by the Olson reference, the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claims 1-3, 5, and 9, nor of claims 6
and 10, dependent thereon.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims
4, 7, and 8 based on the combination of Olson and Taylor, it
is apparent from the Examiner’s analysis that Taylor was
applied solely to address the partial word write limitations
of these claims. Taylor, however, does not overcome the
innate deficiencies of Olson discussed supra and, therefore,
the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 7, and 8 is
not sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007