Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 5
Application No. 09/548,687
parte Kaysen, No. 2003- 0553, 2004 WL 1697755, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). The
examiner makes the following findings.
Blount . . . teaches the first processor [owner (access coordinator) of the
page requested] receiving a request of a page determines locations of the
page requested. The first processor by checking Virtual Shared Memory
Table (VSMT) checks that the first processor [unit 1OA] has the page on
its disk and other processor [unit 1OB] also has a copy of the page in its
main memory; even though the first processor has the page on its disk,
the first processor identifies the first processor is not an appropriate
processor because of a relatively long disk I/O operation to retrieve the
page from its disk; then, the first processor identifies the other
processor [unit 10B] having a copy of the page is the appropriate
processor to process the request [see col. 6, lines 43-47, col. 9, line 61-
col. 10, line 36]. The first processor checks that if the first processor only
has the page, the first processor is the appropriate processor to process
the request [see col. 6, lines 6-13].
(Examiner's Answer at 9-10.) The appellant argues, "The process described in the
Examiner's Answer selects among multiple processors, all of which are capable of
handling the request. Thus, there is no 'appropriate' processor as used in claim 1."
(Reply Br. at 3.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim is anticipated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007