Appeal No. 1999-1193
Application No. 08/429,504
The Examiner asserts, pages 4 and 5 of the Examiner's
answer, that Crump at col. 53 to 54; col. 39, lines 17-20; and
col. 39, lines 10-11 shows the various claimed steps of claim
7. In particular, the Examiner asserts, answer at page 4,
that the recited step of "discarding each memory page within
said subset of said plurality of memory pages for which a copy
is stored within said nonvolatile mass storage device or which
contains no data (flushing caches, col. 39, lines 17-20) [of
Crump]." Appellants argue that, brief at page 8, the flushing
of caches means the "invalidation of the entire contents of
Crump's caches. In contrast to the flushing of caches as
taught by Crump, the removing step recited in claim 7 entails
discarding certain memory pages ... and storing memory pages
containing nonessential data within nonvolatile storage ....
Crump certainly does not identically disclose, and further,
fails to show or suggest handling different memory pages
differently depending upon content." The Examiner's response,
answer page 8, is that "the claims use the word 'comprising'
which would include any other data being discarded along with
the pages already stored in nonvolatile storage and storing
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007