Appeal No. 96-0635
Application 08/132,410
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 9-18. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of independent claim 9
as unpatentable over the teachings of Day. In the rejection,
the examiner basically asserts that Day performs the error
recovery routine as in the claimed invention except that Day
does not teach organizing the local data into transient and
permanent areas. The examiner states that configuring a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007