Appeal No. 1997-2242 Page 11
Application No. 08/084,370
article, as well as the papers to Chandy and Gibson cited in
the Chen article, are not properly before us for decision on
appeal. Consequently, we will limit our determinations to the
teachings of the Jones and Ewert references relied upon by the
examiner in the statement of the rejection.
As per claims 1-3, the examiner acknowledges with respect
to Jones (final rejection, pages 2 and 3) that “[n]ot
explicitly taught is reconstructing data blocks over parity
blocks.” To overcome this deficiency in Jones, the examiner
turns to Ewert. The examiner asserts (final rejection, page 3)
that Ewert “teaches remapping of data blocks (abs.).” In the
opinion of the examiner (id.) it would have been obvious to
“modify the invention of Jones with a remap routine that would
allow remapping of a bad data block to another block (i.e.,
parity). This modification could be accomplished by making
use of any
remap-routine, such as the one disclosed by Ewert et al.”
Appellant asserts (brief, page 17) with regard to claims
1 and 2 that
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007