Appeal No. 1999-0288
Application No. 08/538,071 Page 11
provide Wibecan with a hardware-based register as taught by
Brantley because Wibecan teaches (col. 2, lines 31-34) that its
interface should be independent of the hardware and software of
the system. Appellants argue (id.) that Wibecan uses data
structures to define how the performance monitoring logic of the
system is utilized, and that to relocate the information supplied
by these data structures from memory to control registers,
eliminates the system independence. It is further argued (id.)
that there is nothing in Wibecan that teaches or suggests the use
of monitor mode control registers (MMCRs) and a machine state
register to perform performance monitoring based upon an
effective address in a specific process. As pointed out by
appellants (id.) Brantley's suggestion to count the number of
times that a specific address is accessed is controlled by a
singe status register in the performance monitor chip.
Further (brief, pages 14 and 15), because Brantley suggests
that the counting of the number of times an instruction occurs
may be achieved by a single status register, appellants fail to
see how the recited use of two control registers in conjunction
with the machine status register is taught or suggested by
Brantley, and that even the combination of the single status
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007