Appeal No. 95-3290
Application 08/062,156
We consider first the rejection of independent claim
7. The examiner argues that Klumpp teaches a tape system
having a plurality of fixed length data blocks, but Klump does
not teach the claimed block map relating logical blocks to
physical blocks as recited in claim 7 [answer, pages 4-5].
Osterlund is cited for its teaching of record storage and
retrieval using a high-level directory and embedded
directories relating physical and logical data blocks. The
examiner concludes that the invention of claim 7 obviously
results when the directories of Osterlund are used in Klumpp
[Id. at page 5].
Appellant argues that neither Klumpp nor Osterlund
teaches that the logical block being sought has a
corresponding logical block number as claimed. It is further
argued that there is no logical block counter nor a block map
establishing relationships using logical block numbers.
Appellant also argues that the prior art does not teach that
the entry point mark is in front of the desired logical block.
Finally, appellant argues that the references do not teach a
block map which is used without reference to any further block
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007