Appeal No. 2006-0614
Application No. 09/652,834
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is
deemed to be rendered obvious by the collective teachings of the
applied prior art. Specifically, the examiner finds that
Cherabuddi teaches the claimed invention except for the claimed
cache directory. The examiner cites Arimilli as teaching a
method and system for speculatively sourcing cache memory data
that includes a cache directory lookup functionality and the
speculative sourcing of data among cache memories. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
incorporate the speculatively updateable cache directory of
Arimilli into the Cherabuddi system [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10, which are argued
as a single group by appellants, appellants argue that Cherabuddi
does not even discuss cache directories, reading or writing from
cache directories, or speculatively reading/writing cache
directories. They also argue that Arimilli relates to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007