Appeal 2007-1724
Application 10/284,347
sorting the individual summaries based on the assigned
values, wherein the sorting step creates a list of sorted
summaries;
sorting Lun objects accumulated in the reporting list based
on assigned Lun values, wherein the data retrieved enables the
user to view data across Luns regardless of the device to which
each Lun corresponds; and
reporting the list of sorted summaries.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
MICHELMAN US 5,255,356 Oct. 19, 1993
ENGEL US 5,615,323 Mar. 25, 1997
GILLIS US 6,286,035 B1 Sep. 04, 2001
RAKOSHITZ US 6,578,077 B1 Jun. 10, 2003
(filed Dec. 29, 1997)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Engel, in view of Gillis, further in view of
Rakoshitz.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Engel, in view of Gillis, further in view of Rakoshitz,
further in view of Michelman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 2, 2006) for the reasoning
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013