Appeal No. 1998-1517 Page 6
Application No. 08/685,269
26 or 28 to be a single mirror drive" to make "it simpler for
the outside user to visualize the concept of a diverse group
of drives," and because (id. at page 8) Jacobson has a
virtual storage scheme. The examiner further asserts (id. at
page 4) that Jacobson "does not particularly teach that the
predefined mirror drive has a set capacity substantially
greater than a capacity of each of the plurality of data
drives . . .. This modification would have been obvious
because such is an obvious design choice which changes
size/range [citation omitted] and/or changes proportion."
Appellant asserts, inter alia (brief, page 22; See also
reply brief, pages 2 and 3), that
The cited Jacobson et al. reference provides no
suggestion of any means for or step of assigning a
plurality of data drives and a single predefined
mirror drive in the RAID, nor that the single
predefined mirror drive has a set capacity
substantially greater than a capacity of each of the
plurality of data drives
and that (brief, page 24) the modifications proposed by the
examiner is the result of impermissible hindsight.
We find that in Jacobson (col. 3, lines 29-66), Figure 1
shows disks 12 arranged in a mirror group 18 and a parity
group 22. Mirror group 18 represents a first memory location
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007