Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
Appellant argues, at page 21 of the brief, that the flag
field of Katz “is not at all related to appellant’s use [of] a
reserved area and its flag field...wherein the value within
the total of appellant’s flag field at the time of a power
interruption is unique to the state of the
updating/synchronizing process when power interruption
occurred.” Yet, appellant never points out why the two flag
fields are “not at all related.” Further, while appellant’s
flag field may, in fact, be “unique” to the state of the
process, it is unclear where, in the instant claims, such
“uniqueness” is recited.
Appellant argues that the examiner has employed
impermissible hindsight [brief-page 22] and fails to find any
suggestion to modify Katz in order “to store appellant’s
write-data-update flag, having appellant’s unique values, in
appellant’s reserved-area.” Again, we find nothing in the
instant claims, subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
reciting anything about a flag having unique values. The
claims reciting such specifics, claims 23-27 and 34-38, have
been indicated by the examiner as patentable insofar as 35
U.S.C.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007