Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
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 review of Orbits
we also are unable to find these limitations. Orbits runs the
paging daemon at regular prescribed time intervals to clear
pages which are no longer being used, and once the daemon is
activated, the entire core is scanned. Also, Orbits does not
keep track of the addresses of the entries on an ongoing basis
as the entries are being allocated and/or removed. We,
therefore, conclude that the anticipation rejection of claim 1
over Orbits is not sustainable.
With respect to the independent claim 6, it too
contains the claimed limitations corresponding to the
limitations discussed, 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 reasons as claim 1,
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007