Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
Based on the problems recognized by the prior art, as
recited in the background section of the instant
specification, common sense would have motivated the artisan
with a reason for providing a serial update in each data
storage unit so that in case of a power interruption, data
recovery may be had by reference to those units which had not
yet been updated. The examiner has merely buttressed this
reasoning by offering Williams as evidence of such a common
sense approach.
While appellant states that “both Katz and Williams uses
[sic, use] time-stamp-comparison as a basis for a recovery
process” [brief-page 18, emphasis in the original], and argues
[brief-page 21] that the artisan reading Katz and Williams
would not come away “with any other teaching than the use of
time stamp comparison to determine how to recover from a power
failure,” appellant never explains why such a time stamp
comparison is not an “update table,” as broadly claimed.
After all, both the time stamp information of the prior art
and appellant’s “update table” contain information therein
which will permit data recovery after a power interruption.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007