Appeal No. 2006-2441
Application No. 10/056,224
recording is not taught in conjunction with cache misses. Thus,
at the time of the invention, the ordinarily skilled artisan
would not have looked to the teachings of Roeber in order to cure
the deficiencies of Bunnell. Consequently, we find error in the
Examiner’s stated position, which concludes that the combination
of Bunnell and Roeber teaches the step of generating a temporal
identifier for association with a probe signal, and subsequently
storing the probe signals with associated temporal identifiers.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would have not suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claim 9.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.
With regard to claims 10 through 19, Appellant argues at
pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief that the combination of Bunnell
and Roeber does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
generating a temporal identifier for association with a probe
signal, and subsequently storing the probe signals with
associated temporal identifiers. We have already addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 9 above, and we agree with
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007