Appeal 2007-0643
Application 10/015,825
Cabrera US 6,269,382 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Cabrera.
OPINION
Appellants submit that the rejection of claim 1 is in error because
Cabrera does not disclose prespecifying a scanning scope determined by a
number of candidate data files, and scanning the managed file system until
having reached the prespecified number of migration candidate data files.
As acknowledged at page 4 of the instant Specification, known HSM
applications traverse the complete file system tree in order to gather eligible
candidates for automigration to a remote storage. Appellants wish to
distinguish their invention from the prior art, contending that an important
aspect of the invention is that not a whole file system is scanned through, but
only a part of it as determined by the pre-specified amount. An “amount” of
files may be the number of files or the entire size of multiple files.
(Specification 9:11-16.)
Appellants’ claim 1 does not distinguish the invention from the prior
art, however. The claims measure the invention. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
banc). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013