Appeal No. 95-3872
Application No. 08/171,266
art since Rochkind specifically provides for locking, implicitly
recognizing this need over a system without locking...” [answer-
page 9]. This circular and obfuscatory reasoning of the
examiner, i.e., that because a reference teaches something, it
also implicitly teaches the opposite of that something, falls far
short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness by a
convincing line of reasoning.
Thus, since the changes made in Rochkind are locked out
during updates, Rochkind teaches away from the instant claimed
invention. Neither Katz, which deals with minimizing disk
requirements by storing software versions on-line, nor Gausmann,
which deals with broadcast oriented architecture for a data
storage access system, provides for the deficiencies of Rochkind.
The examiner appears to be giving the claim language a
rather broad interpretation, indicating that appellants’
realization of “consistency” and “concurrency” is achieved by
Rochkind “[t]o the extent disclosed” [answer-page 15] and that
“to the extent disclosed and claimed...the examiner’s reading of
Rochkind is not a stretching of the reference...” [answer-page
17]. It is our view that the examiner’s interpretation of the
claim language, and it is not entirely clear what that
interpretation is, is unreasonably broad since the claims are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007