Ex parte CANTRELL et al. - Page 6




          Appeal No. 1997-1184                                                        
          Application No. 08/206,706                                                  


               from each other to produce the claimed invention.                      
               In addition, the Huston, et al. reference is system                    
               protocol dependent, which the present invention is                     
               not, thus combining Huston, et al. with the                            
               teachings of Rao, et al. does not render the present                   
               invention obvious.                                                     
               We agree with appellants’ arguments.  The examiner’s line              
          of reasoning does not convince us of the obviousness of the                 
          claimed invention because the statement in Rao that access to               
          a physical file system can be made without regard to the                    
          operating system is quite different from removing “operating                
          system dependent syntax” from a request (claims 1 and 3                     
          through 6).  Even if we assume for the sake of argument that                
          it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art              
          to combine the teachings of Huston and Rao, the combined                    
          teachings neither teach nor would have suggested file system                
          object data entries that are independent of any file system                 
          object name, and that are referenceable by multiple file                    
          system object parents each having different naming syntax                   
          (claims 8 and 10 through 15).                                               
                                      DECISION                                        
               The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3                     
          through 6, 8 and 10 through 15 under 35 U.S.C.  103 is                     

                                          6                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007