Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 3 was argued on the same basis as claims 1 and 16 (Br. 18-19;
Reply Br. 10), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in the
rejection of claim 3 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1
and 16.
Claim 4 was argued on the same basis as claims 1, 3, and 16 (Br. 19;
Reply Br. 11), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in the
rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1,
3, and 16.
Claim 5 was argued on the same basis as claims 2 and 4 (Br. 19;
Reply Br. 11), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in the
rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 2
and 4.
Dependent claim 6 was not argued separately from independent
claim 4,3 and thus falls with claim 4.
With respect to claim 7, Appellants argue that "Duprey fails to teach
re-synchronization of caches because each storage processor maintains its
own write intent log." (Br. 20; Reply Br. 12.) We do not agree.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Duprey teaches that the
master storage unit resynchronizes the slave images by resynchronizing the
portions of the slave images that may be unsynchronized. (Answer 12-14;
FF 1-2, 4.) The master storage unit maintains a write intent log, which is
3 Although the Briefs include a point heading for claims 4 and 6, no
argument was presented with respect to claim 6. (Br. 19; Reply Br. 11.)
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013