Appeal No. 2002-1337
Application No. 09/000-635
Taking claim 12 as exemplary, since all the claims will stand or fall together, in
accordance with appellants’ grouping at page 6 of the principal brief, the examiner
makes the following observations regarding Orbits.
The examiner identifies CM memory 23 as a storage medium which contains a
set of instructions for execution by a network device, the network device being
processor 21, within coupled memory CPU modules 11a-11b. The examiner says that
this “network device” is coupled to a cache storage including a plurality of cached
objects, wherein each of the cached objects is associated with at least one of a plurality
of client devices, identifying processor 21 within each coupled memory CPU module as
accessing both local and remote coupled memory 23 within another coupled memory
CPU module. The examiner points to column 3, lines 3-5, of Orbits as a disclosure of
determining an amount of cache resource occupied by cached objects associated with
at least one client device that downloaded the cached object. The examiner also refers
to column 5, lines 39-46 and column 6, lines 19-48, for a teaching of the most
frequently accessed pages of data being physically closest to the processor using the
data. Column 3, lines 5-9, is said to teach the removal of a number of cache objects
from the cached storage to ensure that the amount of cache resource occupied by
cached objects associated with any given client device does not exceed a
predetermined threshold.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007