Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
"additional memory" requires three memories. (Br. 18; Reply Br. 8-9.) We
do not agree.
The Examiner correctly found that Duprey teaches: (1) a write cache
in the master storage unit which stores actual data, corresponding to a first
cache (Answer 7-8, 18; FF 3); (2) a write cache in a slave storage unit that
stores data, corresponding to a second cache (Answer 8; FF 1); and (3) a
write cache in the master storage unit which stores "meta data,"
corresponding to an additional memory (Answer 8-9, 19-20; FF 3). As with
claim 16, there is nothing in claim 1 that requires the first cache to be
separate from the additional memory.
We have considered Appellants' remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants argue that "Duprey does not
appear to disclose or fairly suggest a desire or need for two kinds of memory
to serve as a cache." (Br. 18; Reply Br. 10.) We do not agree.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that volatile and non-volatile
memories, including their properties, merits, and limitations, were well
known in the art at the time of the invention. (Answer 20.) We also agree
that Ohmura teaches a cache memory having volatile and non-volatile
memory. (Answer 20-21; FF 5.) Therefore, claim 2 is a combination of
familiar elements according to known methods that yields predictable
results. In addition, Duprey teaches both volatile and non-volatile memory.
(FF 4.)
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013