Appeal No. 1997-3580
Application 08/400,002
of this appeal. Specifically, appellant argues that the
desired result of the system disclosed by Walls is to have two
copies of a file as a safeguard. Performing the deallocation
step of Sathi in the system of Walls would result in the
elimination of one of the files in Walls which would defeat
the very purpose of the Walls backup. The examiner responds
that “a backup system ‘by definition’ is not limited to merely
copying a file from a first local location to a second backup
location (i.e.; wherein both
copies must continue to exist, as asserted by Appellant), but
also allows for subsequently deleting the original local copy
of the file in those instances when local memory is becoming
full (i.e.; ‘archiving’ systems are a type of ‘backup’ system
wherein both copies of a file do not necessarily continue to
exist, based upon memory space restrictions” [answer, page 5].
The examiner also notes that “Appellant’s assertion that a
backup-type system must necessarily maintain both copies of a
copied file is in error” [id., page 6].
We do not understand the examiner’s supposed
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007