Appeal No. 2002-1833
Application No. 09/246,490
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 18, and sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 19
and 20.
Appellant argues (brief, page 3) that Frank does not
disclose the limitation of
said sub-page support structure including a mechanism
responsive to said processor access to said second
memory for a predetermined portion of a sub-page to
determine if said processor access to said second
memory can be satisfied by a processor access to said
first memory for said predetermined portions of said
sub-page migrated or replicated thereto from said
second memory . . . .
set forth in claims 1, 8 and 19.
With respect to claims 1 through 18, we agree with
appellant’s argument. Frank discloses that a processor request
is handled locally before the request is passed via the memory
management unit to another processing cell (Figures 2A and 4;
column 3, line 64 through column 4, line 8; column 7, line 62
through column 8, line 7). It follows that Frank cannot make a
determination whether a processor access to a second/remote
memory for a predetermined portion of a sub-page can be satisfied
by a processor access to a first/local memory. Thus, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007