Appeal No. 1999-2747
Application 08/757,979
stand or fall together in regard to the above groups. We
will, thereby, consider this group of Appellants’ claims as
standing or falling together, and we will treat claim 20 as a
representative claim of that group.
Appellants argue generally that the limitations of these5
claims are not suggested by the prior art. Specifically,
Appellants point to claims 1, 10 and 19 which recite that
after a failing element has been identified in a storage
array, an Invalid bit in the MESI field of a cache line in the
storage array will be set to inhibit access to the portion of
the array accessed by the failing element. Appellants then
note that the Examiner has admitted that Lefsky does not teach
the operation of a cache supporting the MESI protocol or the
use of an Invalid bit to set a flag to inhibit access to a
portion of the storage array accessed by the failing element.
Turning to McClure, Appellants assert that this reference
fails to disclose the setting of a flag to inhibit access to a
portion of the storage array accessed by the failing element,
wherein the setting of the flag comprises the setting of an
5Brief, page 4.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007