Appeal No. 96-0258
Application 08/094,651
OPINION
We will reverse as the examiner has clearly failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
The examiner applies Sawada to the instant claims as set forth on pages 4-7 of the
answer and then admits [answer, page 7] that Sawada does not expressly disclose the page
table prototype mechanism including the “offset information” limitation for providing
known cross-reference information between the virtual to physical addresses. The
examiner contends, however, that the table look-up mechanism 12 of Sawada “performs
the substantially identical claimed function of providing cross reference between the virtual
to physical address information” [answer-page 7]. Apparently, the examiner bases this
finding on the disclosure, by Sawada, at column 4, lines 3-5, that “the desired page is
searched in the address translation table 3 stored in the main memory with the aid of a
table look-up mechanism 12… ” Therefore, the examiner concludes, at page 8 of the
answer, “it would have been obvious… to use a specific type of information such as offset
information for referencing virtual to physical addresses in the Sawada’s system.”
The mere fact that the look-up table 12 in Sawada “aids” in the translation of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007