Appeal No. 1997-1184
Application No. 08/206,706
from each other to produce the claimed invention.
In addition, the Huston, et al. reference is system
protocol dependent, which the present invention is
not, thus combining Huston, et al. with the
teachings of Rao, et al. does not render the present
invention obvious.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The examiner’s line
of reasoning does not convince us of the obviousness of the
claimed invention because the statement in Rao that access to
a physical file system can be made without regard to the
operating system is quite different from removing “operating
system dependent syntax” from a request (claims 1 and 3
through 6). Even if we assume for the sake of argument that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to combine the teachings of Huston and Rao, the combined
teachings neither teach nor would have suggested file system
object data entries that are independent of any file system
object name, and that are referenceable by multiple file
system object parents each having different naming syntax
(claims 8 and 10 through 15).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3
through 6, 8 and 10 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007