Appeal No. 1996-2481 Page 8
Application No. 07/828763
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Next, we address the appellants’
arguments regarding claims 11 and 12.
Claims 11 and 12
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the appellants argue, “[i]n
the Hoel system, the deallocation of physical patches does not
involve copying data from one physical patch to another.”
(Appeal Br. at 15.) The examiner chose not to respond
specifically to this argument. (Examiner’s Answer at 12 (“no
further discussion is required.”).)
We cannot find that Hoel teaches the claimed copying.
Claims 11 and 12 specify in pertinent part “copying allocated
data regions from the block to be reclaimed to the spare block
whereby a memory area corresponding to the deallocated data
region is reclaimed for allocation.” In short, the claims
recite copying data from one memory block to an erased memory
block.
The examiner erred in not addressing the copying.
Comparison of Hoel’s disclosure to the claim language does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007