Appeal No. 2005-0160 Page 4 Application No. 10/352,265 The appellants do not dispute that Barbara discloses that the cache entry is invalidated using an ID related to the cache entry ID and data entry. However, appellants argue that the present invention discloses a separate process to invalidate cache entries, one using cache entry IDs and a second using data entry IDs. In appellants’ view, and the examiner appears to agree (answer at page 5), Barbara discloses a process in which a data address is used in a process to invalidate a cache entry and this cache address may be considered a cache ID. The examiner considers this cache address to be both a cache ID and a data ID. We agree with the appellants that Barbara discloses an invalidation process that utilizes an ID which is the address of the data in the cache which is to be marked invalid (col 8, lines 27 to 31). This ID may be considered a cache ID as it identifies the data to be marked invalid by its cache address. In our view, this cache address can not properly be considered a “data ID associated with the cache entry” because the cache address is the cache ID itself rather than a data ID associated with the cache entry. In any case, even if we agreed with the examiner that the cache address disclosed in Barbara may be considered a data ID, it certainly cannot be read on the steps of the claimed invention concerning a cache ID and a data ID. Claim 1 requires both a data ID and a cache ID. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of the examiner as it is directed claim 1 and claims 2 to 6 dependent thereon is not sustained. Claim 7, like claim 1, includes subject matter related to the use of a data ID associated with a cache entry, and asPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007