Appeal No. 1997-3580
Application 08/400,002
or fall together [brief, page 6], and we will consider
independent claim 5 as the representative claim for this
rejection. The examiner’s rejection basically asserts that
Walls teaches all the features of claim 5 except for the
deallocation of the first memory location. The examiner cites
Sathi as teaching the deallocation of a first memory location
after moving a file from the first memory location to a second
memory location. The examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to deallocate the first memory
location in the system of Walls to free that memory for
storing new files as suggested by Sathi [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that neither Walls nor Sathi is
directed to moving open files. Appellant also argues that
Sathi is
non-analogous art because it does not relate to the movement
of open files. Finally, appellant argues that there would be
no motivation to modify the Walls system with the deallocation
taught by Sathi because such deallocation would destroy the
very purpose of Walls which is to retain a backup as a
safeguard against information loss [brief, pages 6-11].
We consider appellant’s last argument as dispositive
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007