Appeal 2007-2449
Application 09/927,894
agree that none of the noted portions of Wang satisfy the claim language in
controversy.
However, Wang states (col. 6, ll. 22-32) that using a SCSI, a host
CPU sends multiple commands to a particular target disk, which "allows
multiple block read/write operations to occur in parallel." Although Wang
does not explicitly state that the read/write operations occur over multiple
concurrent logical connections, it is unclear how multiple operations would
occur in parallel between a host and a disk without using concurrent logical
connections. When the Examiner directed Appellants' attention to this
portion of Wang, the burden shifted to Appellants to explain how the claim
limitation differs from Wang. See In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ
563 (CCPA 1971) and In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226
(CCPA 1971). Since the Examiner referenced column 6 of Wang in the
Answer at page 16, and Appellants in the Reply Brief failed to distinguish
claim 1 over the cited portion, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 over Wang. In addition, since claims 2 through 4, 6, 8 through 14,
16, 17, and 54, all dependent upon claim 1, were not separately argued, we
will sustain the anticipation rejection of them as well.
Regarding claim 5, Appellants contend (Br. 7-8) that Wang fails to
disclose a host computer dividing an input/output operation into multiple
operations and performing them in parallel over respective logical,
concurrent connections. The Examiner (Answer 4-5) refers to Wang (col.
10, l. 66-col. 11, l. 29), asserting that Wang's disclosure of partitions satisfies
the claim limitation of dividing an input/output operation into multiple
operations. We find nothing in Wang that would suggest dividing an
input/output operation into constituent operations, each over a different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013