Appeal No. 2002-2309
Application No. 09/099,386
granted and permission denied to modify the block of the first
cache; and
sending the acknowledgment to the first cache.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Galles et al. (Galles) 5,504,874 Apr. 2, 1996
Nishtala et al. (Nishtala) 5,634,068 May 27, 1997
Claims 1 through 11 and 24 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description.
According to the examiner (answer, page 3) “[t]here is no
recitation in the specification, of any use (or even non-use) of
duplicate coherence states, as set forth in the newly added claim
limitations.”
Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nishtala in view of Galles.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 27) and the
answer (paper number 28) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the lack of written description rejection of
claims 1 through 11 and 24, and we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 24.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007