Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by
appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but choose not to make in
the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 20, 23 and 31-
33 as a first group of claims [brief, page 4]. With respect
to representative, independent claim 1, the examiner
indicates how he reads the claimed invention on the
disclosure of Richter. The rejection essentially finds that
Richter teaches the claimed invention except that Richter
does not teach that the items in memory are compressed. The
examiner cites Franaszek as teaching the compression of a
cache line before it is stored in main memory. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
compress the data in Richter before it is stored in order to
reduce the amount of space required in memory which would
require less page-outs to secondary storage [answer, pages
4-5].
Appellants argue that Richter is non-analogous art and
memory management is too broad a field on which to base the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007