Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
Appellants argue that, even though the Specification clearly states that
the non-volatile "list" memory may be provided within the "main" non-
volatile memory and need not be separate (Specification 8:4-8), "these other
embodiments are not the claimed embodiment found in claim 16." (Reply
Br. 7.) Further, Appellants argue that "[e]ven if there were a memory in a
cache adapter that was partitioned, . . . Duprey does not disclose such a
memory in a cache adapter." (Reply Br. 7.) We disagree.
Claim 16 recites "said first cache adaptor further comprising
memory." There is nothing in claim 16 that compels the memory to be
separate from the first cache memory. Therefore, the Examiner's
construction of claim 16 is reasonable. Also, contrary to Appellants'
argument regarding the memory disclosed in Duprey (Reply Br. 7), Duprey
teaches that the master storage unit stores a write entry in the write intent
log, that the master storage unit includes write cache, that the master storage
unit maintains the write intent log in the write cache during normal
operations, and that actual data also may be stored in the write cache.
(FF 3.)
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Issue 2: Obviousness of claims 1-15.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants repeat the arguments made with
respect to claim 16 (Br. 17-18, Reply Br. 7-10). As discussed with respect
to claim 16, we do not find these arguments to be meritorious. Appellants
also argue that the recitation of "a first cache," a "second cache," and an
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013