Appeal No. 1999-2233
Application No. 08/794,691
Turning next to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2 through 9, we agree with the examiner (answer, pages
6 and 7) that Walls achieves the verification step of claim 2
when “[f]ollowing the backup operation, the backup control
program sets the consistent state flag 35 indicating that the
operations were completed (step 63)” (column 7, lines 10
through 12). Appellants’ arguments (brief, page 9) concerning
“[r]eferential integrity” and “synchronism” during the backup
operation are not commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention. We likewise agree with the examiner (final
rejection, page 3) that Wood discloses “garbage collection
after database backup (col. 3, lines 7-11)” as set forth in
claim 3, and that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use such a technique in Walls to
increase the speed at which backup takes place (final
rejection, page 4). Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 11
and 12) for claims 4 through 9 mirror those made for claims 1
through 3. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2
through 9 is sustained.
Turning lastly to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 10 through 20, we agree with the appellants (brief,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007