Appeal No. 1999-0568
Application No. 08/447,594
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,
1051-52, 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 brief have
not been considered (see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)).
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner cites Baror as teaching a flexible cache
system. The examiner acknowledges that Baror does not
specifically teach the steps of transferring, writing,
initiating and terminating as recited in claim 1.
Barajas is cited as teaching a method for flushing a
cache oriented computer architecture which has the above-
noted four steps of claim 1. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to apply the
technique of Barajas to the Baror system in order to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007