Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 9
Application No. 09/548,687
page Pb and is advised that a copy Pb is still in the main memory of unit 10B.
The remote memory manager of unit 10A therefore sends a message to the remote
memory manager of unit 10B, requesting that unit 10B send a copy of the page Pb
to the remote memory manger of unit 10C." (Id. at ll. 29-36.) Because processor 10B
could service the request faster than processor 10A, we find that the remote memory
manager identified the former as the appropriate processor to service the request.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 by Blount and of claims 2, 3, and 5, which
fall with claim 1.
B. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 12-18, 20, AND 21 BY JIANG
The appellant argues claims 1-3 and 5 as a group, (Appeal Br. at 9-12), claims 9,
10, and 12-15 as group, (id. at 12-13), and claims 16-18, 20, and 21 as group. (Id. at
14-15). All these claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. Therefore, we
select claims 1, 9, and 16 as the sole claims on which to decide the appeal of the
respective groups.
The examiner finds, "Jiang et al teach [that] a . . . first processor is responsible
[col. 1, line 63 - col. 2, line 17] for data access tasks associated with a first storage
device [e.g., file system 23 in fig. 1] coupled to the multi-processor storage controller. . .
." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellant argues, "claim 1 recites a multi-processor
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007