Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
we find that the field of memory management is the
appropriate field for determining whether prior art is
analogous, and that Richter is clearly from this field of
endeavor. On the second point, we agree with the examiner
that Franaszek is not relied on for the teaching of data
being freely accessible. The data in Richter is freely
accessible for reasons indicated by the examiner in the
answer. On the third point, we also agree with the examiner
that Richter teaches that a main memory can be managed using
a paging technique.
It is important to note the manner in which the
examiner has read the elements of claim 1 on the disclosure
of Richter [answer, pages 4-5]. Based on this reading, the
only feature missing from the claimed invention is the
concept of storing compressed data. The examiner notes that
Franaszek teaches compressing data before it is stored, and
the examiner notes that such compression would have been
useful in Richter because it would have permitted more data
to be stored in the memory which would have required less
page-outs to secondary storage. We agree with this finding
of the examiner. Although appellants argue that there is no
indication that Richter would benefit from data compression,
we can find no logical reason on this record why the system
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007