Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
removing each such entry from the page table;” (claim 17,
lines 6 to 10). The anticipation rejection of claim 17 is,
therefore, also not sustainable for the same reasons as claim
1.
Since the dependent claims 2, 7, 10 to 13, 15, 18 to 20,
22 and 23 contain at least the above discussed limitations of
their respective independent claims 1, 6 and 17, their
anticipation rejection over Perazzoli is not sustained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Orbits
Claims 1, 2, 5 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 20, 22 and 23
are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Orbits.
We take claim 1 for example. We have considered Appellant’s
arguments [brief, pages 10 to 11] and Examiner’s position
[answer, pages 4, 7 and 8] regarding claim 1. The Examiner
has not identified in Orbits 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entries have been identified as no longer active;” (claim 1,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007