Appeal No. 2006-0614
Application No. 09/652,834
speculatively reading from memory, not writing to memory, and
that Arimilli updates the directory after it is determined that a
retry is not present and after the speculative data sourcing is
completed. Appellants then assert that the wherein clause of
claim 1 is not “disclosed in either Cherabuddi or Arimilli.”
They argue that neither reference teaches speculatively writing
anything, and certainly not speculatively writing a next
directory state [brief, pages 10-12].
The examiner responds that the Cherabuddi memory means would
obviously include a directory table for address location
purposes. The examiner asserts that Cherabuddi discloses a
method for maintaining data coherency through speculatively
writing data, which remains speculative until validated. The
examiner also responds that the read with the intent to modify
(RWITM) requests of Arimilli clearly require a modification or
writing. The examiner disagrees with appellants’ argument that
the directory update in Arimilli is not done speculatively. The
examiner asserts that the intervention response and cache
housekeeping in Arimilli both occur prior to the retry [answer,
pages 8-12].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3,
5, 7 and 10 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007