Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
all elements of the claimed invention be described in a single
reference. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Perazzoli
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 to 13, 15, 17 to 20, 22 and 23
are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
Perazzoli. We take claim 1 as representative. We have
considered Appellant’s arguments [brief, pages 7 to 9] and
Examiner’s position [answer, pages 3, 4, 6 and 7] regarding
claim 1. The Examiner has not found in Perazzoli any specific
text and figure which show, for example, these claimed
limitations: “upon each allocation of an available address,
examining ... whether the entries have been identified as no
longer active;” (claim 1, lines 6 to 8), and “removing the
entries ... and maintaining a list of the addresses associated
with the entries being removed;” (claim 1, lines 9 to 10).
From our revirew of Perazzoli we also do not find. Perazzoli
swaps page table pages when the pages get used up (column 2,
lines 35 to 52). Perazzoli does not keep track of the
addresses of the entries on an ongoing basis as the entries
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007