Appeal No. 2004-2199
Application No. 09/896,043
lines 10-13; col. 9, lines 5-8). Gulick thus maps the
associated partition and its memory window, but has no
bearing on locating the data in a memory access by providing
the address of the memory page corresponding to the data.
Gulick’s physical address refers to the processing modules
of each partition or the address space as viewed by the
operating system on its corresponding partition (col. 15,
lines 66 to col. 16, line 2), and is not equivalent to
Appellants’ address of a memory page corresponding to the
data to be accessed. Gulick’s memory window is associated
with the partition, and is not equivalent to Appellants’
location address corresponding to a table entry pointing to
the location of the piece of data to be accessed. The
address to be mapped and the resulted mapped address in
Gulick have no relationship to the piece of data in a memory
access as in Appellants’ claimed invention.
. . . . Gulick’s mapping reveals no showing that the
address to be mapped of the processors and the resulted
mapped address of the memory window have relationship to the
piece of data in a memory access as in the claimed
invention.
Since we find ourselves persuaded by this essential line of
reasoning set forth by appellants, we are constrained to reverse
the rejection of the claims on appeal even though we recognize
that the memory table arrangement of the independent claims on
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007