Appeal 2007-1978
Application 10/185,702
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings
of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community
or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
We begin our analysis by noting that independent claims 1, 11, 21,
and 317 recite one read request to read and access data in a storage device
when the data is stored in contiguous sectors of the storage device. (App.
Br., Claim Appendix.) We further note in Appellants’ Specification that the
request is made by identifying the first memory sector as well as the length
of the data in the sectors where the requested data is stored in contiguous
memory sectors. (Findings 1 and 2.) We find that Matsunami’s disclosure
reasonably teaches this limitation.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Matsunami teaches a request to access data in a SCSI memory. The request
includes the logical unit number (LUN) of the storage device, the logic
7 Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34. Therefore, we select
independent claim 1 as being representative of the cited claims. Claims 4,
11, 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34 consequently fall together with representative
claim 1. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013