Appeal No. 95-1544
Application 08/003,602
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation relied on by the examiner as support for the
rejection. Likewise, we have reviewed and taken into
consideration appellant's arguments as set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner's rationale in support of the rejection
and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the instant claims are not anticipated by the
Yamaguchi reference.
Each of the independent claims requires that the
"special section of code performs a series of operations that
must be completed without interruption...requiring all memory
references to be in assigned storage at one time" and
prior to retrieving the unavailable
memory reference from said secondary
storage, undoing operations carried out
by the special section of code so that
substantially no executed fragments of
the special section of code are in
existence.2
Claims 14, 16 and 18 do not recite "prior to retrieving the2
unavailable memory reference from said secondary storage"
immediately preceding the "undoing operations" but these claims do
require such a limitation. This is clear, in claims 14 and 16, by
the recited first step of "modifying said page fault handling
routine prior to executing said special section of code so that
said page fault handling routine does not read a memory reference
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007