Appeal No. 1998-1434 Page 6
Application No. 08/159,647
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner’s
rejections and the appellant’s argument.
Although Mincer does not teach a RAID system, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
implement the reference's storage unit 15 as a RAID-1
(mirrored) system "so that the storage unit maintains plural
copies of the video segments and so that the playback systems
can access different video segments at any time." (Examiner's
Answer at 3-5). The appellant argues, "[n]oting [sic] within
Mincer et al. can be
said to show or suggest the provision of duplicate video
segments and the transmission of selected video segments from
a particular direct access storage device within the RAID
system ...." (Appeal Br. at 7-8) She further argues, "the
attempted combination of Holland et al. with Mincer et al. ...
would not result in a system such as that set forth expressly
within the claims of the present application." (Reply Br. at
4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007