Appeal No. 2005-0160 Page 2
Application No. 10/352,265
The appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for invalidating
cache data in a data processing system (specification, p. 2). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Prior Art References
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Barbara et al. (Barbara) 5,581,704 Dec. 3, 1996
The Rejections
Claims 1 to 12 and 26 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Barbara.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 10, mailed March 18, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed February 24, 2004) and
reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 30, 2004) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007