Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 14
Application No. 09/548,687
person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)). "After a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the
burden of going forward shifts to the applicant." In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As mentioned regarding claims 6, 11, and 19, the appellant admits that Jadav
teaches data striping across multiple disk drives. Furthermore, the appellant has not
addressed, let alone shown error in, the examiner's finding that the reference also
distributes data access tasks between processors. For its part, Jadav supports this
finding by teaching that a "first processing unit performs an update after determining
that the first processing unit controls access to the parity group," (col. 2, ll. 37-39),
whereas the "first processing unit transmits the data update to a second processing unit
after determining that the first processing unit does not control access to the parity
group. The second processing unit performs an update after receiving the data update
from the first processing unit." (Id. at ll. 32-27.) Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 4 and of claim 22, which falls therewith, over Jiang and Jadav.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007