Appeal No. 1997-2058
Application No. 08/122,828
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Miro 5,220,653 Jun. 15, 1993
Howarth, “A Review of Disk Scheduling Policies,” The Australian Computer Journal, Vol.
14, No. 4, pp. 150-154, (November 1982).
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miro
in view of Howarth. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph two as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Dec. 30, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Oct. 10, 1996) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007