Appeal No. 1998-1434 Page 9
Application No. 08/159,647
1784, (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885,
1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Here, the examiner admits, "Mincer does not expressly
teach ... a RAID system," (Examiner's Answer at 3), let alone
selecting a single DASD from a plurality of DASDs of a RAID
system. For its part, Holland does teach a RAID-1 scheme of
"two independent logical drives." Col. 12, ll. 45-46. The
scheme, however, does not select one drive. To the contrary,
it simultaneously employs all the drives. Specifically,
"Reads are then issued to both drives in parallel in order to
start a race." Id. at ll. 50-51.
Because Holland teaches that RAID-1 schemes employ all
drives in parallel, we are not persuaded that teachings from
the prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed
limitations of "selecting a direct access storage device for
retrieval of the video segment" or "means ... for selecting a
direct access storage device for retrieval of the video
segment ...."
The examiner impermissibly relies on the appellant’s teachings
or suggestions. He fails to establish a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007