Appeal No. 1998-1434 Page 7
Application No. 08/159,647
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)).
Here, claims 1-6, 8, and 9 each specify in pertinent part
the following limitations: "storing duplicate video segments
on each of a plurality of direct access storage devices within
a RAID system ...;" and "selecting a direct access storage
device for retrieval of the video segment ...." Similarly,
claims 10-
15, 17, and 18 each specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a RAID system comprising a plurality of direct
access storage devices;" and "means ... for selecting a direct
access storage device for retrieval of the video segment ...."
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-15, 17, and 18 each require
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007