Appeal No. 1999-2216
Application 08/805,399
OPINION
Appellants group the claims as follows (Br6):
(1) claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 stand or fall together with
claim 1; (2) claims 4 and 11 stand or fall together with
claim 4; and (3) claim 6 stands or falls separately. It
turns out that it is only necessary to address independent
claim 1.
The Examiner finds (FR2):
[The APA] teaches a method and system for recovering a
computer system from a loadsource DASD located at a
remote location after failure of a local loadsource
DASD allowing the remote DASD to be utilize [sic] for
IPL processings, instead of the failed local DASD's IPL
data. (Figure 2, and page 1 line 20 to page 2 line 25
and page 7 line 28 to page 8 line 22).
Appellants' Figure 2 shows remote IPL (initial program
load), i.e., IPL from a mirrored loadsource DASD at the
remote site (specification: p. 1, lines 20-28; p. 2,
lines 20-25; p. 7, line 28 to p. 8, line 22). However, the
claimed invention is directed to an indirect local IPL
method, i.e., communication with the remote loadsource DASD
to copy its contents to a local loadsource DASD followed by
IPL from the local loadsource DASD. The prior art local
(non-remote) IPL method involves physically transporting the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007