Appeal No. 2003-0333
Application No. 09/231,041
Appellant argues that the portion of Menasce relied on by
the examiner fails to support the examiner’s position that the
branches in Menasce are separate and independent as claimed.
Appellant argues that the branches in Menasce are clearly
interleaved and, therefore, not independent. Appellant also
argues that any memory space division in Menasce occurs in
separate branches rather than in an individual branch as claimed.
Appellant also argues that Smith relates only to dividing a cache
into a plurality of partitions and not to a memory space division
as claimed [brief, pages 4-8].
The examiner responds by essentially repeating the
language of the final rejection. The examiner disagrees with
appellant that the branches in Menasce are not independent. As
noted above, the examiner simply asserts that the teachings of
Menasce can be extended to arrive at the claimed invention or
that Smith teaches the memory space division as claimed [answer,
pages 8-10].
Appellant responds that the interleaving in Menasce and
the teaching that the CMMUs for each word may be paralleled
require that the branches be interdependent. Appellant complains
that the examiner failed to address this argument. Appellant
also argues that there is no support for the examiner’s position
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007