Appeal 2007-1731
Application 10/796,051
We observe that, contrary to the Examiner’s apparent reading of claim
27 (see Answer 8), the claim does not specify what information is retrieved
from the non-volatile memory at system startup, and thus does not require
the information retrieved to be the same that is periodically transferred to the
non-volatile memory. Nor does the claim require, for that matter, that the
information that is periodically transferred from the volatile memory to non-
volatile memory is the information in the volatile memory respecting a
plurality of applications. The need for another, perhaps broader, search of
the prior art might be indicated.
In any event, we agree with Appellants (Br. 18) that Davis does not
even appear to teach a system for storing information respecting a plurality
of applications to a shared memory. Even assuming that it does, the
Examiner alleges (Answer 8) that the disclosure of Davis at column 7 lines
30 through 49 with respect to ROM 33 containing the basic input-output
system (BIOS) that controls basic hardware operations teaches the
combination of claimed backup and retrieval features. Davis does not do so,
however, at least for the reason that the reference does not describe
periodically transferring information to BIOS (ROM 33).
volatile memory were well known to the artisan; e.g., in word processing or
spreadsheet programs that periodically back up the application file resident
in volatile memory.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013