Appeal No. 95-1308
Application 07/999,502
Appellants argue that neither Coale nor any of the other references disclose: (1) monitoring
and storing the claimed operating conditions (temperature, vibration, power supply output voltage,
and transducer-to-medium clearance); (2) a non-volatile, non-moving storage for storing specific
operating records sorted by type into main, secondary, and last in last-out partitions; (3) an external
connection port to the non-volatile, non-moving storage allowing read access to the partitions thereof
while bypassing the device controller.
Coale shows a block diagram of the computer peripheral subsystem but does not describe the
physical structure, which makes it difficult to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It is
improper to resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis
for a rejection. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
As to the alleged difference (1), it is clear that Coale does not disclose or suggest monitoring
and storing the claimed operating conditions. Coale maintains a log of usage, which corresponds to
the broadly claimed "cumulative operating statistics," and a log of time stamped error exceptions,
which corresponds to the broadly claimed "time stamped error occurrence records." However, Coale
does not monitor the claimed physical operating conditions or log "time stamped operating condition
records." As discussed, infra, this limitation is considered determinative of the obviousness question.
As to the alleged difference (2), the examiner finds "that Coale uses a partitioned,
non-volatile, non-moving storage subsystem data base to store error information" (Examiner's
Answer, page 11). However, the examiner does not cite to the record to support this finding. We
do not find any description in Coale of the physical structure in which the Subsystem Environment
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007