Appeal No. 2001-2119
Application No. 08/826,744
redundancy in case of failure of a drive in the array,
especially in view of an explicit suggestion to do so at
column 2, lines 28-40 in Windrem.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted by any
convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative claim 2, and
claims 8, 9, and 12 which fall with claim 2, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 3 as well as claim 13 which falls with claim
13 according to Appellant’s claim grouping. We find to be
unpersuasive Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s
comments (Answer, page 6) concerning the increased bandwidth
feature of the disk array of Windrem is merely “a statement
of operability” and not a motivation for the combination
with Kassatly. In our view, Appellant has mischaracterized
the Examiner’s comments regarding Windrem’s disk array
feature as providing the basis for the proposed combination.
It is apparent to us, as pointed out by the Examiner (id.,
at 11), that the Examiner’s asserted motivating factor for
combining Kassatly with Windrem with regard to claim 3 is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007