Appeal No. 2002-1337
Application No. 09/000-635
Appellants argue that Orbits is not concerned with maintaining a cache storage
in a network device coupled to a plurality of client devices, as is the instant invention
but, rather, Orbits is directed only to managing coupled memory that is accessible by a
plurality of CPUs.
In particular, appellants point out that the coupled memory, CM, in Orbits is not a
cache storage, as claimed, since Orbits shows two cache memories separate and apart
from the managed coupled memory.
More specifically, appellants point to the claim language requiring that the
plurality of client devices are “capable of downloading objects” and that each cached
object “is associated with at least one client device that downloaded it,” arguing that it is
clear that the individual CPUs in Orbits are not “client devices,” as that term is used in
the instant claims and as would be understood by artisans.
Still further, argue appellants, even if one could equate the coupled memory and
CPUs of Orbits to the cache storage and client devices of the instant claimed invention,
which appellants do not concede, Orbits would still not anticipate the instant claimed
invention because “the reference lacks any teaching of determining an amount of the
CM occupied by objects associated with each of a plurality of CPUs, or removing
objects from the cache if that amount exceeds a predetermined threshold” (principal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007