Appeal No. 96-0028
Application 07/885,099
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Hartung et al. (Hartung) 4,583,166 Apr.
15, 1986
Beardsley et al. (Beardsley) 5,146,576 Sep.
8, 1992
OPINION
Claims 1-10 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hartung in view of Beardsley.
The examiner identifies only two differences between
Hartung and the claimed subject matter: Hartung does not
disclose a nonvolatile storage or a controller rate change
buffer. The examiner relies on common knowledge for teaching
the storage and on Beardsley for teaching the buffer.
Examiner’s Answer at 4-5.
According to appellant, the prior art also fails to
teach (1) determining whether an operation is a miss avoidance
candidate and (2) staging data into cache upon the device
sector ready interrupt dropping and the request from the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007