Appeal No. 2001-1571
Application No. 09/062,002
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
With respect to the two independent claims on appeal (1 and 6), the rejection
contends that Martens teaches all the subject matter except “an array of entries within
each row as recited in the claims.” (Final Rejection at 4.) Appellants respond (Brief at
6-7) that Martens does not teach all the features attributed to the reference. Appellants
submit that the examiner has not shown where Martens teaches the claimed
“translation array.”
The examiner responds, in the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer,
by pointing to material in column 1 of Martens. The statement of the rejection (Final
Rejection at 3) also points to column 1 of the reference for details of the “translation
array.” However, we observe that column 1 relates to a description of “related art,” and
speaks in general terms of the operation of translation caches. The section does not
detail operation of a translation cache in relation to Marten’s “adder/decoder” 200 (col.
5, ll. 17-35; Fig. 2), upon which the rejection appears to rely.
Martens at column 1, lines 46 through 48 might serve as evidence that the terms
“translation array” and “translation lookaside buffer” may be used interchangeably in the
art. However, the claims require combination of both a “translation array” and a
“translation lookaside buffer.” Even if the terms might be recognized as referring to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007