Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 5
Application No. 07/828763
reference negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in
mind, we address the appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1-
3, 13-15, and 42-45; regarding claims 11 and 12; and regarding
claims 16-18 seriatim.
Claims 1-3, 13-15, and 42-45
Regarding claims 1-3 and 42-45 and relevant to claims 13-
15, the appellants argue, “Hoel's ‘L-P map’ is not equivalent
to ‘an allocation table.’” (Appeal Br. at 11.) The examiner
replies, “the allocation table of the claim and the L-P map
serve the same purpose: to form a map between block/patch and
data area.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)
We cannot find that Hoel teaches the allocation tables of
the claims. Claims 1-3 and 42-44 specify in pertinent part a
“memory divided into blocks of memory locations, each block
having an allocation table ....” Similarly, claims 13-15
specify in pertinent part a “memory divided into blocks ...
the method comprising the steps of: storing an allocation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007