Appeal 2006-3434
Application 10/687,907
The Examiner rejected1 the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10 through 12 and 17 through 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Miller.
B. Claims 6, 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Miller and Geva.
C. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
Miller and Hale.
The Examiner relied on the following references:
Miller US 5,809,528 Sep. 15, 1998
Geva US 6,539,541 B1 Mar. 25, 2003
Hale US 6,564,317 B1 May 13, 2003
Hannum US 6,823,434 B1 Nov. 23, 2004
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and representative of the
Appellants’ invention. It reads as follows:
1. A method for preventing matching of prospective entries
with table entries stored in a fully associative table, the method
comprising the steps of:
writing illegal values to substantially all of said table entries in
said fully associative table; and
prohibiting said prospective entries from having said illegal
values under normal program execution conditions, thereby
preventing any matching conditions between said table entries and
said prospective entries.
1 The Examiner also rejected claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16 through 18 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Hannum.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013