Appeal No. 2004-2199
Application No. 09/896,043
subject matter common among the 3 independent claims in a
slightly different manner, we agree with appellants’ views with
respect to this claim and the teaching value of Gulick as set
forth at pages 6 and 7 of the principal brief on appeal which we
reproduce here:
In various embodiments of Appellants’ invention, a
piece of data corresponds to a memory page, and an entry of
a memory table points to that piece of data (Specification,
page 13, lines 2-4, FIG. 2). Consequently, in claim 1, when
a program accesses memory for a particular piece of data,
the memory table uses a physical address of the memory page
corresponding to the piece of data to convert to a location
address corresponding to an entry pointing to the location
of the piece of data. The piece of data identified by the
address to be mapped of the memory page is located by
identifying the mapped address of the table entry pointing
to the piece of data. This is done by converting the
physical address of the memory page corresponding to the
piece of data to the location address of the corresponding
table entry. In effect, the address to be mapped and the
mapped address in Appellants’ claim 1 relate to the piece of
data in a memory access.
In contrast, in Gulick, partitions of various operating
systems may communicate through a shared memory window (col.
2, lines 15-19). Each memory window is thus assigned to a
corresponding partition (col. 5, lines 12-13). Therefore,
the exclusive memory windows of each partition can be made
to appeal to their respective operating systems as having a
same base physical address by mapping th physical address
space of the processors in each partition to the respective
exclusive memory window assigned to the partition (col. 5,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007