Appeal No. 2002-0374 Page 2
Application No. 08/599,227
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-131, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for
accessing a cache memory having a redundant array without
displacing a cache line in a main memory. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which
is reproduced as follows:
1. An improved cache memory system, comprising:
a plurality of cache lines in a cache;
1 An amendment (Paper No. 18, filed January 27, 1997) submitted
subsequent to the final rejection (Paper No. 17, mailed November 25, 1996) was
not initially entered by the examiner (Paper No. 19, mailed February 12,
1997). However, the examiner indicated that the rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was withdrawn in view of appellants'
response. In a supplemental advisory action (Paper No. 20, mailed March 11,
1997) the examiner indicated in box 1 that the amendment would not be entered
for purposes of appeal. However, in box 3, the examiner indicated that the
amendment would be entered for purposes of appeal. Appellants indicate
(brief, page 2) that the amendment was entered by the examiner. The examiner
(answer, page 1) confirms that appellants' statement of the amendments after
final rejection contained in the brief is correct. Accordingly, we consider
the amendment received January 29, 1997 to have been entered. Although the
amendment has not been physically entered into the file, we consider this to
be a formal matter to be addressed by the examiner subsequent to the appeal.
In addition, we observe that the language of claim 1 as amended (Paper No. 18,
filed January 27, 1997) is inconsitent with the language of the claim as it
appeared in the application prior to the January 27, 1997. In the decision,
we have relied upon the language of claim 1 as it appears in the appendix to
the brief and in the after final amendment (Paper No. 18, filed January 27,
1997). The examiner should review the amendment and the previous amendment
(Paper No. 16, filed September 30, 1996 to determine the actual language of
claim 1. As the difference in the language of the claim would not change our
decision, infra, we consider this a formal matter to be addressed by the
examiner subsequent to the appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007