Appeal No. 2002-1994
Application No. 09/364,449
11 and 17 as the representative claims of their corresponding
groups.
With respect to the rejection of claim 4, the focus of
Appellants’ arguments is that reading the claimed plurality of
storage units as “bits” in Thatcher and reading the recited
plurality of groups as Thatcher’s “words” is improper (brief,
page 8). Appellants point out that the claimed “groups” refer
to the storage units having remapped data whereas a word refers
to a multi-byte entity having a particular arrangement (id.).
Appellants further argue that equating a storage unit with the
“bit” of Thatcher in view of the bit organization disclosed in
the reference (col. 3, lines 27-48) does not result in storage
units corresponding to a group but, to the words being read
(brief, pages 9 & 10).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner points
out that the main issue contended by Appellants is whether each
group of the plurality of groups is operable for reading a data
value from a corresponding storage unit in the group (answer,
page 7). The Examiner argues that the original 8 words in the
cache line are interleaved among each other such that their bits
are intermixed with bits from all the other words (answer, page
7). The Examiner further asserts that the rearrangement of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007