Appeal No. 97-1263 Page 9
Application No. 08/219,552
We observe that the examiner satisfied the burden of
establishing a prima facie of obviousness. Accordingly, the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument was shifted
to the appellants. They came forward with argument. We now
consider their argument.
The appellants’ argument focuses on the storage means of
claim 1. The claim recites in pertinent part a “first storage
means for storing said information as ATTENTION DATA from each
of said plurality of SCSI targets for each of said plurality
of host processors, ... said first storage means further
having a separate memory location for each combination of said
SCSI targets and said host processors.” (Spec. at 17.) The
appellants’ argument regarding the storage means follows.
Fischer recites a Mailbox for each processor module
and each adapter module, but does not recite a
Mailbox for each combination of processor module and
adapter module. Nowhere does Fischer's memory
architecture allow for Appellants' unique means for
storing ATTENTION DATA from each target for each
host processor with a separate memory location for
each combination of targets and processors, as
recited in Appellants' claim 1. Neither the SCSI
standard nor Fischer, alone or in combination,
appear to teach such a storing means. Therefore, it
would not have been obvious to use Fischer in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007