Appeal 2007-0643
Application 10/015,825
Appellants cancelled claim 2 after the Final Rejection, but did not
cancel or otherwise modify claim 3 when limitations from claim 2 were
incorporated into claim 1. Claim 3 is subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as the claim recites that the scanning scope is
determined by the “total amount of data” for the candidate data files. Claim
3 is inconsistent with base claim 1, which already sets forth how the
scanning scope is determined -- by a number of candidate data files.1
In any event, Appellants argue that Cabrera does not disclose wherein
the scanning scope is determined by the total amount of data for the
candidate data files and wherein the managed file system is scanned until
having the prespecified amount of data. We disagree, at least for the reason
that Cabrera describes a hierarchical storage manager as periodically
scanning either the entire local storage or “a portion of the local storage” in
order to identify candidates for pre-migration. Col. 24, l. 62 - col. 25, l. 3.
Appellants do not appear to hold that the claimed “migration” is different
from the pre-migration described by Cabrera. In any case, Cabrera discloses
that the various described scanning techniques are equally applicable to the
migration and “pre-migration” of files (e.g, col. 9, ll. 60-63; col. 14, l. 11 et
seq.; col. 17, ll. 44-59).
Appellants also submit that Cabrera does not disclose (claim 4) that
the scanning of the managed file system is resumed at a location of the
1 If we were to assume that claim 3 requires a determination by both of a
number of candidate data files and the total amount of data for the candidate
data files, the limitation would not be supported by the disclosure and thus
subject at least to a written description (35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph)
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013