Appeal No. 2006-2441
Application No. 10/056,224
Bunnell and Roeber does not teach generating a temporal
identifier for association with a probe signal, and subsequently
storing the probe signals with associated temporal identifiers.
Particularly, at pages 4 and 5 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant
states the following:
However, Bunnell and Roeber, taken alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest a method for
monitoring an execution of a program which includes
when the entry in the first memory device does not
exist, generating at least one probe signal indicating
a miss entry in the first memory device; generating a
temporal identifier signal that is associated with the
probe signals; and storing the temporal identifier
signal and the probe signals in memory.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what is the
invention claimed ?”...Claim interpretation...will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process.” Panduit Corp.
v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
We note that representative claim 9 reads in part as follows:
[G]enerating a temporal identifier signal that is
associated with the probe signals; and storing the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007