Appeal No. 1998-1517 Page 10
Application No. 08/685,269
drives of column 26 or column 28 to be a single mirror drive,
we note at the outset that in Jacobson, column 26 represents
data drives, and we find no suggestion to consider them mirror
drives. As to the drives in column 28, we note that Jacobson
discloses these drives to represent mirror drives, but does
not disclose drives 28 to represent a single mirror drive.
Jacobson does disclose that in practice, disk array 10 would
simply have a plurality of disks 12 with storage space
allocated for mirror or parity redundancy (col. 4, lines 32-
35). However, Jacobson is silent as to a single predefined
mirror drive for a plurality of data drives. The fact that
the data will be allocated between mirror and parity
redundancy using a virtual storage space does not suggest a
single predefined mirror drive for a plurality of data drives.
In sum, we find that the determinations of obviousness
advanced by the examiner have not been supported by any
evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our view, the only suggestion for
modifying Jacobson in the manner proposed by the examiner to
meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007