Appeal 2007-0398
Application 10/308,445
1 respect to a single snapshot file system. We conclude that the Examiner is
2 correct as to a method or server with a single snapshot file system.
3 However, Appellants correctly point out the claims before us require
4 plural “related snapshot file systems.” We find nothing, in the references or
5 rejection, which describes or suggests stretching the teachings of DeKoning,
6 to include plural related snapshot file systems.
7 Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not given any
8 reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the prior art elements
9 to make Appellants’ claimed invention. It follows that the Examiner erred in
10 rejecting Claims 11, 16, 20, 27, 29, 36, and 39 under § 103(a). Since the
11 remaining dependent claims are narrower than the independent claims from
12 which they depend, it also follows that those claims were not properly
13 rejected under § 103(a) over Chen, DeKoning, and Patel.
14
15 CONCLUSION OF LAW
16 On the record before us, Appellants have shown that the Examiner has
17 not given any reason why one skilled in the art would have combined Chen
18 and DeKoning to provide access to “a group of related snapshot file systems
19 . . . ” as required by claims 11, 16, and 29; and Appellants have shown that
20 the Examiner has failed to establish one skilled in the art would have
21 combined Chen and DeKoning and Patel to provide a server for operating
22 “related snapshot file systems . . . ” as required by claims 20, 27, 36, and 38.
23
24 DECISION
25 The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-13, 16-18, 20-21, 23-24, 27,
26 29-30, and 36-43 is Reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013