Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
an analogous trace recording system outputting trace sequence information to a file as
claimed” (Answer, page 6, and Ayers, column 3, lines 60 to 61). We find claim 4
obvious over the prior art as taught by Wisor and Ayers.
Appellant further argues that the limitations of claims 9 to 12 are not disclosed in
the prior art. In the Examiner’s Answer, page 8, top, examiner indicates, “and further,
Wisor discloses determining whether the predefined area of storage is full, and
overwriting the first unique identifier in the storage area as claimed.” See Wisor, column
8, lines 35 to 37, “The buffer can be set to wrap around so that the oldest entries are
overwritten by the newest entries, or it can be set to generate an interrupt.” Appellant at
the bottom of page 10 questions whether the determination of the number of unique
identifiers and acting on that determination is within the prior art, as claimed. Both Ayers
and Wisor discuss overwriting the instruction traces and the BTHB respectively, with
activities dependent on the buffer being full. Wisor, column 8, lines 35 to 37, and Ayers,
column 3, lines 61 to 62.
We therefore sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 to 12 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Wisor in view of Ayers.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection of all claims
under the statutory sections as indicated above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007