Appeal No. 96-3294
Application 08/055,422
contain an equivalent limitation to using ranges of read/write
ratios; therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 9 is
sustained.
Claim 10 recites that the fileserver buffer management
policy "creates a relatively higher preference for retaining
in said memory buffers portions of files having collected
fileserver access operation statistics corresponding to a
relatively higher read-to-write ratio." The Examiner states
that "[t]his aspect of the invention was addressed with
respect to claim 1" (EA6). We find no treatment of this
limitation in the discussion of claim 1; indeed, claim 1 does
not contain this limitation. Claim 7, however, contains an
analogous limitation about the time files are resident in the
buffer. The Examiner states with respect to claim 7 that
"Mattson's cache size selection if chosen as a measure of
read/write ration [sic] would necessarily affect the average
time in which files remained resident." Mattson does not base
cache size on read/write ratio, which is not measured, and so
the Examiner's "if" condition is without support in the
record. The Examiner states that "[a]dditionally, those of
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007