Appeal No. 95-1544
Application 08/003,602
The examiner identifies the "undoing" portion of the
claim as being equivalent to that taught by Yamaguchi at column
5, lines 66 et seq. [answer, page 4]. In response to appellant's
arguments, the examiner stated [answer, pages 6-7] that this is
taught as the recovering of contents of
the saved internal registers to return
to a restart point. This teaches the
limitations of "substantially no
executed fragments of the special
section of code are in existence". As
Yamaguchi returns to a restart point for
execution, the steps executed after the
restart point are "erased". Yamaguchi
has a "clean slate" to the point of the
restart point in the program.
We have reviewed the portion of Yamaguchi cited by the
examiner for the "undoing" limitation of the claims and while we
agree that Yamaguchi discloses an instruction restart procedure
for restarting an instruction after a page fault process, we find
nothing in Yamaguchi which erases operations carried out by a
special section of code, so that no executed fragments are in
existence, before retrieving the unavailable memory reference
from a secondary storage, thereby assuring that the entire series
from said secondary storage in response to a requested memory
reference not being available in said assigned storage," and in
claim 18, at step (c) "interrupting said executing said special
section of code if it is determined in step (a) that a requested
memory reference is not available in assigned storage" followed by
the step of "undoing..."
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007