Appeal No. 2006-1030
Application No. 09/895,233
OPINION
Essentially for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the Answer, as expanded upon
here, we sustain the rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as well as the remaining
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
According to appellants’ arguments with respect to the first-stated rejection of the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 at pages 7 through 12 of the principal Brief on appeal,
appellants present no arguments as to any dependent claim represented there and consider
independent claim 1 as representative of the other independent claims 13 and 22.
Correspondingly, according to the rejection of the remaining claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, pages 12 through 15 of the principal Brief on appeal present arguments as to the
combinability of Shah and Bakke and do not present any arguments as to any feature of any
claims listed within this rejection.
Turning first to the rejection of representative independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, appellants’ arguments focus upon this language in the determining clause “partitioning
said physical element to provide a plurality of virtual representations of said physical element,
each one of said plurality of virtual representations having a unique access control level.” With
respect to the examiner’s initial characterization of this clause being met by Shah’s teachings at
the bottom of column 8 relating to assigning multiple paths to a port, appellants assert at the top
of page 13 of the Brief that merely assigning an LID to each port does not teach partitioning a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007