Ex Parte Stanley - Page 5

            Appeal 2007-1576                                                                                 
            Application 10/020,398                                                                           

            artisan would have readily recognized that this information would likewise identify              
            that the second information does not need to be sent from the second processor-                  
            based system since the file is current in the first processor’s cache.  Thus, though             
            not claimed, Maddalozzo does teach the second processor sending first information                
            so that it does not have to send second information.                                             
                   For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not convinced                  
            us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and we affirm the Examiner’s                  
            rejection of claim 1.                                                                            
                   Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to claims 2, 3, 8                 
            through 15, and 18 through 22.  Accordingly, under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii),                 
            we group claims 2, 3, 8 through 15, and 18 through 22 with claim 1 and similarly                 
            affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 through 15, and 18 through 22.                 
                   Appellant’s have not presented separate arguments directed to the                         
            Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 7, 16, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.                       
            § 103(a).  As claims 5 through 7, 16, 17, and 23 are all ultimately dependent upon               
            claim 1, 12 or 22, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 7, 16, 17,             
            and 23 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.                                  

                                              CONCLUSION                                                     
                   The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.                                                 








                                                     5                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013