Appeal No. 1998-0063
Application No. 08/057,805
In the present case, the examiner has provided no
secondary references for a teaching, suggestion, or
implication as to why the skilled artisan would have modified
Harari. The examiner's motivation for modifying Harari is to
improve the efficiency of the device by creating back-up space
as needed, thereby not wasting memory space. Although the
motivation for modifying a reference may come from common
knowledge in the art, the examiner's reasoning comes straight
from appellants' objects of the invention (Specification,
pages 7-8). The examiner contends (Answer, page 4) that
similar techniques are used in other environments, but
provides no evidence to corroborate his assertions. Thus, the
examiner clearly has engaged in impermissible hindsight.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 1 similarly recites a means for creating a data
relieving area when and if a defect is detected. As explained
above, the examiner has failed to provide adequate motivation
for modifying Harari to meet such a limitation. Claim 1 also
recites a means for creating a second data relieving area when
and if the first area is full and a defect is detected.
Harari discloses remapping an entire sector to another sector
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007