Appeal No. 96-3668
Application 08/314,574
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety
of the rejection, are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 20) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 26), and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 25).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and
the appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
With respect to claim 1 as presently drafted, it has not been shown in the examiner’s
answer that either reference discloses electronically tracking the number of physical accesses of each
file on a media (i.e., appellants’ disk) at a first level or electronically tracking the number of physical
transfers of each media from a second level to a first level. Further, neither reference has been shown
to teach electronically determining frequently accessed files and frequently transferred media, nor
electronically migrating frequently accessed files to frequently transferred media. Whereas there is no
suggestion or teaching that it would have been obvious to modify the combined teaching of Warr and
Clark to make the modifications obvious, the rejection cannot be sustained. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Independent claim 8 is directed to a media storage library for performing the method
defined in claim 1, and for that reason, the rejection of claim 8 will not be sustained.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007