Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 18 through 39
under the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, we will
summarily sustain this rejection since no substantive
arguments thereagainst are offered by appellant.3
We now turn to the rejection of claims 18 through 22, 28
through 33 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Katz discloses a redundant storage array that stores
update data in order to determine the point at which an
interrupt occurred. However, as recognized by the examiner,
Katz does not disclose an update table for each reserved area.
Instead, Katz employs a single non-volatile memory 413 which
stores a time stamp used for recovery of data after power
restoration. In our view, it would have been equally obvious
to store such update information (and the time stamp
information of Katz would clearly constitute “update”
information) in either a single, common non-volatile memory,
3The rejection can be obviated by the filing of a proper
terminal disclaimer which appellant has offered to file upon
allowance of the application [see page 10 of Paper No. 8,
filed January 14, 1997].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007