Appeal No. 2003-0333
Application No. 09/231,041
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of sole independent claim
1 based on the teachings of Menasce and Smith. The examiner
indicates that Menasce teaches the invention of claim 1 except
that Menasce does not specifically disclose at least one branch
having at least one hierarchical level of multiple cache memory
units in a memory space division. The examiner asserts that the
teachings of Menasce can be extended and applied to each branch
of Menasce to arrive at the claimed invention. The examiner also
cites Smith as teaching a hierarchical level of multiple cache
memory units in a memory space division. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify Menasce as
taught by Smith to arrive at the claimed invention [answer, pages
3-4].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007