Appeal No. 1997-4116 Page 11
Application No. 08/589,826
Reading claims 1-3 and 5-14 in light of the specification, the
claimed limitations recite, upon identifying a damaged page
frame, placing a corresponding page frame in another storage
element into a non-preferred state so that it cannot hold
fixed data.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
these limitations in the prior art. The passage of the
appellants’ specification on which the examiner relies merely
describes a need that existed in the prior art (viz., that
"non-preferred sub-increments ... have good page frames in
corresponding positions to the page frames containing fixed
data in the preferred subincrements to be copied. Otherwise
the reconfiguration ... cannot proceed.") (Spec. at 4.) The
passage does not teach any solution to the need, let alone the
appellants’ solution.
Another portion of the specification teaches that the
MVS/ESA operating system "provides the capability ... to
specify a ratio of preferred to non-preferred storage to be
maintained." (Id.) Although this portion teaches a solution
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007