Appeal No. 1997-1654 Page 17
Application No. 08/431,307
Claims 30, 40, and 48
Regarding claims 30, 40, and 48, the appellants argue,
“The Office Action fails to identify any specific text, source
code, or other portion of the cited references which discusses
scratch memory.” (Appeal Br. at 16.) The examiner makes the
following reply.
The ‘specific text’ appellant might refer to appears
at Lam, page 24, col 2: [t]he code is made up of
multiple code segments, and only those segments in
use are kept in memory. As other segments are
needed, thev are read in from disc. This explicit
teaching of downloading needed items from separate
storage into a temporary, or ‘scratch memory’ as
they are called for then combines with the
‘default’/’overriding attribute’ arrangement of
Rosenthal, in which given subobjects must of
necessity assemble final ‘attribute’ sets before
they can be executed. (Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
We agree with the appellants.
Claims 30, 40, and 48 require “a scratch memory area”
that is distinct from the memory locations where the claimed
default attributes and overriding attributes are stored. The
examiner errs in interpreting the content of Lam. Although he
refers to Lam’s memory, as aforementioned, the memory is the
main memory area where a computer program is loaded. Lam, p.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007