Appeal No. 2003-0333
Application No. 09/231,041
2, the extension proposed by the examiner is not of the same type
as that structural change, and there is no suggestion that the
proposed extension would result in any benefit whatsoever. We
also agree with appellant that Smith has nothing to do with a
memory space division at one hierarchical level. As noted by
appellant, a memory space division requires a structural
separation between the memories. Smith simply partitions a
single cache memory and does not relate to a memory space
division within a hierarchical level of cache memories.
For all the reasons discussed above, we have not
sustained the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 based
on Menasce and Smith. Since Hardy and Mattson, either alone or
in combination, do not overcome the deficiencies of the base
combination discussed above, we also do not sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007