Ex Parte RAZDAN et al - Page 4




               Appeal No. 2001-2477                                                                                                
               Application No. 09/099,384                                                                                          


                              Though prior art may be used to show what matters would lie within the                               
                       knowledge of one skilled in the art to explain ambiguities in an application, it cannot                     
                       be used to supply specific limitations not found therein.  The question is not what                         
                       modification of appellants’ disclosure might occur to one skilled in the art, it is rather                  
                       whether the invention they are claiming is described in their specification.                                
                       Appellants pose the question (reply brief, page 3) “[a]re the Applicants’ required to mention               
               duplicate cache tags if one of ordinary skill in the art is already well aware of those concepts?”  If              
               that is their invention, then the answer is yes.  Notwithstanding the awareness of the skilled artisan,             
               appellants must describe in the disclosure their contribution to the art pertaining to “duplicate cache             
               tags” or the lack of such cache tags in the memory management system.  Thus, we agree with the                      
               examiner’s position (answer, page 3) that “the specification does NOT disclose that the memory                      
               management system does not internally duplicate the coherence state of the cache,” and the rejection                
               of claims 1, 2 and 4 through 11 is sustained because “the negative limitations recited in the present               
               claims, which did not appear in the specification as filed, introduce new concepts and violate the                  
               description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112.”  Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ                     
               393, 394 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                
                       Turning to claim 12, the examiner is of the opinion (answer, pages 6 and 7) that the claim                  
               lacks written description support for “directly probing” the caches because the microprocessor is                   
               probed directly, and then the microprocessor in turn “indirectly” determines the contents of the                    
               caches.  Claim 12 on appeal is drafted in a method format, as opposed to a system format, and does                  
               not specify what portion of the system is responsible for “directly probing” the caches.  In other                  
               words, nothing in claim 12 precludes the memory management unit from directly probing the                           
                                                                4                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007