Appeal No. 2002-2191
Application No. 09/354,482
in the bitmap, as required by instant independent claims 1, 7, and 8. As noted by
appellants and the examiner, Drewry mentions (col. 7, ll. 12-14) that a client may
request particular program content, such as a bitmap image. The “storables” taught by
Drewry, upon which the rejection relies, in no sense specify particular memory data
blocks from a mass data storage device to be pre-staged into cache memory. Drewry’s
teachings relate to “semantic,” as opposed to “physical,” objects. The logical, rather
than the physical, arrangement of data to be retrieved is of interest in the Drewry
system. See, e.g., col. 9, ll. 18-21 and 46-51; col. 14, ll. 5-9.
The rejection also appears to equate the “load sets” noted in the Abstract of
Drewry with the data blocks of instant independent claim 13. (Answer at 7.) However,
the semantic object “load sets” described by Drewry (e.g., Fig. 5) are not based on
physical memory considerations, but on logical arrangement. See, e.g., col. 9, ll. 8-27.
We cannot agree that the semantic object load sets of Drewry are, in any sense, data
blocks which are specified by a cache bitmap from the host computer, as required by
claim 13.
Because we agree with appellants that the requirements of at least the
respective independent claims are not met by Drewry, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1-16.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007