Appeal No. 2002-1337
Application No. 09/000-635
There is nothing in this teaching that indicates that Orbits is interested in the
amount of cache space “associated with” any given CPU, or client device, and in
making a decision to remove cached objects from cache storage in order to ensure that
the amount of cache resource occupied by cached objects “associated with” any given
client device (or CPU) does not exceed a predetermined threshold, as claimed.
Instead, the “predetermined threshold” in Orbits relates to the amount of free memory
space of each coupled memory (CM) region and, if the amount of free space is below
the threshold, then a number of pages of the CM region are scanned and those pages
used less often are placed on a list of pages which can be replaced with other pages
stored in the storage medium. As explained by appellants, at page 6 of the reply brief,
...Orbits is concerned only with the overall amount of free space
in the coupled memory and how frequently particular pages are
accessed. Unlike the claimed invention, Orbits is not concerned
with how the objects came to be in the coupled memory (i.e., the
client devices that downloaded them).
We also agree with appellants’ comment, at page 6 of the reply brief, that
Orbits discloses that each of the coupled memories is associated with
a particular CPU to which it is directly coupled, but it says nothing about
any association between CPUs and the pages stored in the coupled memories....
The mere fact that multiple CPUs can access objects in a given coupled memory
does not support the conclusion that objects in a coupled memory are somehow
“associated” with a CPU that retrieved the object.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007