Appeal No. 1999-1193
Application No. 08/429,504
should be contiguous sectors to allow a rapid write to disk
and a rapid read from disk during suspends and resumes,
respectively." (col. 46, lines 51-54). This implies that
Crump does not have a fixed location for the suspend file but
rather makes it responsive to the need of the suspend routine.
Thus, we find that it would have been obvious for an artisan
to create the suspend file only when it was desirable to have
it available for the storage of the operating state of the
data processing system. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 2 and its grouped claims 3 to 6, 9 to 12,
18 to 22, and 25 to 28 over Crump.
Claims 7 to 8 and 23 to 24
The Examiner rejects these claims as being anticipated by
Crump. We take claim 7 as representative of this group.
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, See Hazani v.
Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361
(Fed.
Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007