Appeal No. 1998-0948
Application No. 08/198,343
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that the language of claim 1 is quite broad in the recitation of
the structure and function performed by the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a “storage
mechanism” which is described at page 7 of the specification. The specification at page 7
discusses varied scenarios for a restart of the computer by installing a minimal bootable
system on the primary volume or the startup application may directly boot from the minimal
system in the recovery volume. The specification further states that the recovery software
is located in a separate area of permanent storage and that this may be a separate
area/partition or separate volume on a partition. The specification also states that the
secondary volume or partition may not be located on the same storage device as the main
volume from which the system software is normally loaded and may be on a different
device such as a flash memory or network server, as long as it is accessible during
startup. Therefore, it is clear that the language of claim 1 encompasses more than just
storage on the same hard disk drive.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007