Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
Wilson to the extent set forth at page 12 of this brief. Pages 6 through 9 of the
answer (the examiner’s responsive arguments portion) emphasize that it is Wilson
who teaches that it was known in the art to lock at least the kernel portion of a
memory. This appears to be admitted by appellants’ in the arguments presented at
pages 11 and 12 of the principal brief. Indeed, the kernel portion 20 is generally
stated to be non-swappable as set forth in paragraphs [0047], [0049] and [0058].
Note the corresponding showings in figures 1 and 5 of Wilson.
The examiner’s reasoning at this portion of the answer also emphasizes the
teaching in the paragraph of Price at column 1, beginning at line 15. We note
corresponding teachings in the paragraph at column 4 describing figure 1
beginning at line 10. It appears to us that the artisan would well appreciate from
the state of the art with respect to prior art operating systems, some of which
include so-called kernels, that they were regarded as unswappable. The prior art
operating systems discussed at these portions of Price correspond to the operating
systems in Wilson (to include virtual memory systems) discussed at paragraphs
[0004], [0021-22] and [0060]. It is these portions of system memory that are not
swapped in and out of system memory during normal operations but which remain
fixed during normal operations and of which are subject to be able to be dumped
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007