Appeal No. 2006-0614
Application No. 09/652,834
the brief. Specifically, we agree with appellants that neither
Cherabuddi nor Arimilli teaches performing a speculative write of
the next directory state to the coherence directory for the data
block as claimed. Cherabuddi teaches that speculative read
requests are cancelled if a write request is received before the
speculative read request, whereas the speculative read request is
validated if it is received before a write request [column 4,
lines 50-58]. There is no suggestion of performing speculative
writes of the next directory state for the data block. Arimilli
clearly teaches that the directory of an L2 cache is not updated
until after the speculation has been validated [note box 43 of
Figure 3]. Thus, we disagree with the examiner’s position that
Arimilli teaches a speculative write of the next directory state
as recited in the claimed invention.
Since all the remaining claims on appeal contain recitations
similar to the recitations of claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10, we also
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of these remaining
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1-16 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007