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 as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007