Appeal No. 2005-1853 3
Application No. 09/915,751
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain all of
the rejections of record.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection, appellants’ sole argument on appeal (brief,
page 5; reply brief, pages 1 through 3) is that the claimed invention does not rely on
secondary memory (e.g., disk memory). Stated differently, appellants argue (reply brief,
page 2) that they “have claimed a method and system that compresses pages of memory
using only a system memory, and Garber does not teach such a system and method.”
At the outset, we note that the claims on appeal are not directed to the use of “only”
system memory. Nothing in the claims on appeal precludes the use of secondary memory
in addition to the use of system memory because all of the claims on appeal use the open-
ended expressions “method comprising” or “system comprising.” For this reason, we
agree with the examiner’s statements that “the claimed invention is anticipated by a device
that swaps pages out to disk because the claims do not preclude swapping pages out to
disk” (answer, page 19), and that “not only do the claims not preclude use of a disk to
store compressed pages, but the specification actually teaches the same” (answer, page
21). In the absence of other arguments in the record, the anticipation rejection is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007