Appeal No. 96-0028
Application 07/885,099
computer system aging beyond a predetermined threshold.
Appeal Brief at 6.
As to (1), the examiner provides a rationale for
interpreting Hartung as disclosing the recited miss avoidance
determination. Examiner’s Answer at 5-6.
As to (2), the examiner is silent. The examiner
fails to address the recited feature either in the statement
of the rejection or in the response to argument. Upon our own
review of the references, we do not find any teaching or
suggestion for staging data into cache upon the device sector
ready interrupt dropping and the request from the computer
system aging beyond a predetermined threshold. With no
rationale establishing a suggestion for such a system, the
rejection cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-10 and 15-19 is not
sustained.
REVERSED
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007