Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
application of art. Appellants also argue that the items in
Franaszek are not freely accessible as claimed. Finally,
appellants argue that the teachings of Franazek are directed
away from paging as recited in claim 1 [brief, pages 4-8].
The examiner responds that Richter, Franaszek and the
claimed invention are all directed to the field of memory
management. The examiner also responds that Richter, rather
than Franaszek, is relied on for the teaching of items being
freely accessible. Finally, the examiner notes that
although Richter teaches use of segmentation, that does not
negate the fact that the reference teaches storing pages in
the main memory of the system [answer, pages 7-9].
Appellants respond that the field of endeavor of claim
1, taken as a whole, is different from the field of endeavor
of Richter. Appellants also respond that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Richter regarding the need or
desirability for data compression [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We will sustain the rejection of the first group of
claims because none of appellants’ arguments are persuasive
of error in the rejection. On the first point, we agree
with the examiner that the field of endeavor of the
invention of claim 1 and the disclosure of Richter is the
field of memory management. Based on the scope of claim 1,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007