Appeal No. 2003-0640
Application No. 09/507,261
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 18, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 3-4]. The Examiner deems the "in response to the
invalidate message issues a request for an exclusive copy of the
data" limitation of claim 18 to be met by "updating a cache line
which is in a state indicating it is the 'only cached copy'
either consistent with memory or inconsistent with memory"
[answer, page 4, lines 7-9]. Appellants argue, "nothing in
Lovett teaches responding to a received invalidate request with a
request for an exclusive copy" (brief, page 5, lines 22-23).
Appellants further argue, "Lovett is not concerned with, and does
not teach, how nodes should respond to received invalidate
requests" (brief, page 6, lines 10-11). Finally, Appellants
argue, "Nothing in Lovett inherently requires that the response
from one of the remote nodes be a request for an exclusive copy,
as required by the independent claims" (brief, page 6, lines 21-
23). Upon reviewing the Lovett reference, we find that Lovett is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007