Appeal No. 2004-0538
Application No. 09/976,495
Rejection at Issue
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by AAPA.
Claims 2 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over AAPA
in view of either Hagersten or James. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the
Briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along
with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s
rejection and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the reasons stated infra we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants assert, on page 3 of the brief, that the AAPA teaches a coherence
mechanism which provides for a write-back of data to memories when there is new
data in the cache. On page 4, of the brief, appellants argue that the coherence controller
is not the same as the claimed cache flushing engine. Appellants argue:
1Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on June 4, 2003 and appellants filed a Reply Brief on
August 18, 2003.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007