Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
are being allocated and/or removed. We, therefore, conclude
that the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Perazzoli is
not sustainable.
With respect to the independent claim 6, it too contains
the claimed limitations corresponding to the limitations
discussed above, namely: “maintaining a list of addresses that
have been deleted;”, “upon the occurrence of ... event,
examining ... whether those entries are associated with any of
the addresses on said list;” and “removing each examined entry
from the page table
which is associated with an address on said list;” (claim 6,
lines 5 to 10). For the same rationale as claim 1, the
anticipation rejection of claim 6 over Perazzoli is also not
sustainable.
Regarding the independent claim 17, we find that it
contains the corresponding limitations, namely: “means for
indicating that a range of logical addresses has been
deallocated;”, “means ... for examining a limited number of
the entries in the page table to determine whether they are
associated with an address that has been deallocated, and for
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007