Appeal No. 1997-4116 Page 11 Application No. 08/589,826 Reading claims 1-3 and 5-14 in light of the specification, the claimed limitations recite, upon identifying a damaged page frame, placing a corresponding page frame in another storage element into a non-preferred state so that it cannot hold fixed data. The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of these limitations in the prior art. The passage of the appellants’ specification on which the examiner relies merely describes a need that existed in the prior art (viz., that "non-preferred sub-increments ... have good page frames in corresponding positions to the page frames containing fixed data in the preferred subincrements to be copied. Otherwise the reconfiguration ... cannot proceed.") (Spec. at 4.) The passage does not teach any solution to the need, let alone the appellants’ solution. Another portion of the specification teaches that the MVS/ESA operating system "provides the capability ... to specify a ratio of preferred to non-preferred storage to be maintained." (Id.) Although this portion teaches a solutionPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007