Appeal No. 2002-0374 Page 3
Application No. 08/599,227
at least one redundant unmapped cache line in said cache; and
means for signaling said cache to access one of said plurality
of cache lines or said at least one redundant unmapped
cache line, wherein said at least one redundant unmapped cache line
is used as a temporary cache location without displacing or
overwriting any of said plurality of cache lines.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Supnik 5,070,502 Dec. 3, 1991
Rastegar 5,297,094 Mar. 22, 1994
Lucente, “Memory System Reliability Improvement Through Associative
Cache Redundancy”, Vol. 26, No. 3, March 1991, pages 404-409.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Supnik in view of Rastegar or Lucente. Rather
than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 24, mailed September
16, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 23, filed June 6,
1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the brief have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007