Appeal 2007-1352
Application 10/406,127
used in the resynchronization. (Answer 12-13; FF 2, 4.) Even though the
slave storage units are described as having a write intent log (FF 1), Duprey
only describes one write intent log being used for resynchronization
(FF 1-2, 4).
Appellants also argued for patentability of claim 7 on the same basis
as claims 1 and 16 (Br. 20; Reply Br. 12), and we find that Appellants have
failed to show error in the rejection of claim 7 for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 16.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 8 was argued on the same basis as claims 2 and 7 (Br. 20;
Reply Br. 12), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in the
rejection of claim 8 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 2
and 7.
Dependent claim 9 was not argued separately from independent
claim 7,4 and thus falls with claim 7.
Claim 10 was argued on the same basis as claims 1 and 16 (Br. 21;
Reply Br. 13), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error in the
rejection of claim 10 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1
and 16.
Claim 11 was argued on the same basis as claims 1, 7, and 16 (Br. 21-
22; Reply Br. 13-14), and we find that Appellants have failed to show error
4 Although the Briefs include a point heading for claims 7 and 9, no
argument was presented with respect to claim 9. (Br. 20; Reply Br. 11-12.)
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013