Appeal No. 2001-2164
Application No. 09/024,620
3, lines 39-42, column 8, lines 1-2 and Figure 4, items 402 and
403, of Singh, and column 6, lines 51-55 and 57-60, of Wilson in
support of the examiner’s position that the subject matter of
instant claim 1 would have been obvious.
In particular, the examiner states that Singh discloses a
method for improving memory latency in a system having a
plurality of processing units, each processing unit having an
associated cache. The examiner contends that a requesting
processing unit issuing a message to an interconnect of the
system indicating that the requesting processing unit desires to
read a value from an address of the memory device of the system
is disclosed by Singh at column 10, lines 20 and 25-42, and in
Wilson, at column 6, lines 51-54.
The examiner further contends that each cache snoops the
interconnect to detect the message and that this is disclosed at
“column 8, lines 1-2” (answer-page 4). While the examiner does
not indicate which reference is being cited, it appears to be
Singh. The examiner “interprets snooping to be the process of
caches checking their contents to see if the requested exists
there” (answer-page 4).
The examiner describes the “each cache transmitting a
response...” paragraph of claim 1 as being disclosed at column
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007