Appeal No. 2001-1571
Application 08/958,844
or NAP, respectively. Further Ng discloses that an incoming DAR
is considered to be sequential if the requested data block medium
storage address is contiguous to the medium storage address of
the immediately previous requested data block. We find that the
thrust of the invention in Ng is to detect the pattern of the
incoming data access requests, and depending upon the nature of
the request, the data is either supplied in a sequential manner
(BOM) or in a circular or non-sequential manner (COM).
We do not find, and the Examiner has not pointed out in his
rejection or in his response to the arguments, where, in Ng, the
recited limitations of “first data corresponding in size to said
constant unit storage region and taken from a series of data
after said correspond data, and storing said first data in said
constant unit storage region (Claim 1, lines 7-9)” is found. In
contrast, in Ng the data request is coming at a rate which is not
responsive to the size of the constant unit of the storage.
Considering independent claim 3, after reviewing Examiner’s
rejection Appellant’s arguments and Examiner’s response to the
arguments, we again do not find, neither has the Examiner pointed
out, where Ng discloses the recited limitations of “temporarily
storing said corresponding data in a partial region of said unit
storage region of said data transmission storage device (Claim 3,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007