Appeal No. 1998-1517 Page 9
Application No. 08/685,269
capacity substantially larger than a capacity of each of the
data drives would have been an obvious design choice of
size/range or proportion. We agree that the storage capacity
of the drives could be increased in order to increase system
capacity as an obvious change in the size of the memory of the
drives. However, the claim requires more. Claim 1 requires a
single mirror drive for the plurality of data drives, and
further requires that the single predetermined mirror drive
has a set capacity substantially greater than a capacity of
each of the plurality of data drives. This is more than a
mere change in size or proportion, but rather is a change in
the system configuration, which is not taught or suggested by
Jacobson.
While Jacobson does teach that the size of the mirror
RAID can be enlarged according to the requirements of the
computer application, Jacobson not teach or suggest providing
a single predefined mirror drive with a set capacity
substantially greater that the capacity of each of the
plurality of data drives.
With regard to the examiner's assertion (answer, page 5)
that Jacobson "be modified" to consider the Jacobson mirror
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007