Appeal 2007-2449
Application 09/927,894
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 17, 19 through 21, 23, 26, 27,
and 54 through 56 and reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 5, 7, 18,
22, 24, 25, 28 through 37, and 57 through 59.
OPINION
The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that Wang (col. 8, ll. 42-54, and
Figs. 6 and 8a) discloses input/output operations between a host computer
and a storage server using multiple concurrent logical connections, as recited
in independent claim 1. In the Response to Argument section of the Answer,
the Examiner further directs our attention to column 11, line 50-column 12
for the above-noted limitation. The Examiner also states (Answer 16) that in
an interview with Appellants' representative, column 6, lines 22-32, had
been pointed out as disclosing input/output operations in parallel over
multiple logical connections. Appellants contend (Br. 6-7 and Reply Br. 2)
that the text in columns 8 and 11-12 and Figures 6 and 8a of Wang fail to
teach or suggest multiple concurrent logical connections between a host
computer and a storage server. The issue is whether Wang discloses
input/output operations between a host computer and a storage server using
multiple concurrent logical connections.
In Figure 6 and the portion of column 8 relied upon by the Examiner,
Wang merely discloses a RAID controller accessing plural RAID volumes.
Further, Figure 8a and the corresponding description in columns 11-12 of
Wang illustrate accessing data across a group of disks via multicasting. We
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013