Appeal No. 2002-2309
Application No. 09/099,386
combined as suggested by the examiner, the skilled artisan would
still not know from the combined teachings whether the memory
manager in the preferred embodiment should not use duplicate
cache tags. Any rejection put forth by the examiner must be
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and, when that
evidence is lacking in the record, the Board can not and should
not resort to unsupported speculation to lend credence to the
rejection. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433 (Fed. Cir. 2002), and In re Zurko, 111 F.3d 887, 889,
42 USPQ2d 1476, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The only teaching of
record of a memory manger without duplicate cache tags is
appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention, and it is not
available to the examiner in an obviousness rejection. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 24 is reversed.
With respect to claim 12, and the claims that depend
therefrom, the examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 9) that
the DTag New State Values 322 and the S REPLY type 325 entries in
the Status Vector in Active Transaction Status Array 294 in
Figure 14 of Nishtala are a “data movement field” and a “next
state field,” respectively.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007