Appeal No. 95-3290
Application 08/062,156
map [brief, pages 10-11]. The examiner disagrees with
appellant’s arguments.
We agree with most of appellant’s arguments. The fact
that Osterlund counts bytes of data does not establish that
there are entry points in terms of a logical block number.
The block map of Osterlund refers to embedded directories and
not to logical block numbers. The examiner asserts that claim
7 does not require that the directory be before the logical
block, however, the examiner ignores what claim 7 does recite.
Claim 7 recites that the tape is moved to a mark in front of
the desired logical block which is not suggested by the
applied references. The embedded directories in Osterlund are
located after the data which is to be accessed. The embedded
directories in Osterlund operate as additional block maps
which must be used to read the desired data. Claim 7
specifically recites that such further block maps cannot be
used.
Thus, notwithstanding the examiner’s assertions to the
contrary, there are several features of independent claim 7
which are not suggested by the applied prior art. Since the
obviousness of these differences has not been addressed in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007