Appeal No. 2006-2441
Application No. 10/056,224
Appellant. Further, Appellant argues that neither Levine nor
Razban, nor Mahalingaiah cures the noted deficiencies of the
Bunnell-Roeber combination. Our review of the cited references
indicates they are not concerned with providing a temporal
identifier for each miss entry in a cache. One of ordinary skill
in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have thus
not found that these teachings, taken alone or in combination,
complement the Bunnell-Roeber’s system to yield the claimed 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 not have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 10 through 19. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 through 19.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we reverse.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007