Appeal No. 97-2696
Application 08/231,657
the anticipation rejection of claim 6 over Orbits 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
removing each such entry from the page table;” (claim 17,
lines 6 to 10). The anticipation rejection of claim 17 is,
therefore, is also not sustainable for the same reasons as
claim 1.
Since the dependent claims claims 2, 5, 7, 9 to 15,
18 to 20, 22 and 23 contain at least the above limitations of
their respective independent claims 1, 6 and 17, their
anticipation rejection over Orbits is not sustained.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Orbits and Abramson
The Examiner has rejected claims 16 and 21 as being
obvious over Orbits in view of Abramson. We have reviewed
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007