Appeal 2006-0016
Application 10/347,536
attempting, simultaneously by multiple processors
including said processor, to gain ownership of said cache line;
in response to receiving, by said processor, a coherency
response indicating state information for data to be read by the
Read transaction will be delivered along with delivery of the
data, abstaining, by said processor, from going critical by
blocking transactions that collide with said Read transaction
from being received by said processor during processing of said
Read transaction, said processor and said other processors being
prohibited from gaining ownership of said cache line during
said processing of said Read transaction, wherein Read-Read
deadlocks are prohibited.
B. REJECTIONS
Claims 37-48 and 60-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as
lacking a written description. Claims 37-40, 42-48, 60-63, and 65 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Patent
No. 5,297,269 ("Donaldson"). Claims 38-48 and 61-65 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Donaldson and U.S. Patent
No. 6,330,643 ("Arimilli").
II. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within
each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's
brief to the Board must contain a clear statement for each rejection:
(a) asserting that the patentability of claims within the group of claims
subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together, and (b) identifying
which individual claim or claims within the group are separately patentable
and the reasons why the examiner's rejection should not be sustained." In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013