Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the
Appeal Brief (Paper No. 9) (pages referred to as "Br__") for
a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Gniewek
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 are grouped to
stand or fall together (Br8). Claim 1 is selected as the
representative claim.
The Examiner interprets the claimed "collection of data
volumes, defining a multi-volume data set" to read on the
multiple copies of a single volume data set taught in
Gniewek. The Examiner reasons that the determination of the
cartridge from which the data can be retrieved in the
shortest response time "clearly suggests assigning a
weighted score to each said PDSD and selecting a PDSD having
a weighted score indicating closest proximity to each
requested data volume . . ." (EA4) and that assigning a
weighted score and selecting a PDSD based on the weighted
score would have been obvious (EA4-5).
Appellant argues (Br10) that Gniewek does not teach or
suggest a "multi-volume data set." The Examiner disagrees.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007