Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
and because we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5) that
“it would have been obvious to store the selection code with
the host as an alternative location for storing this
information.” The obviousness rejection of claims 13, 21 and
24 is sustained because each of the disks in Cunningham is a
“detachable memory module,” and is a “reprogrammable memory.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 15 is reversed
because Cunningham and Moriyama neither teach nor would they
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a selection
switch coupled to the controller for selecting a data recovery
procedure.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 1, 3 through
14 and 16 through 24, and is reversed as to claims 2 and 15.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007