Appeal No. 1999-2263
Application 08/581,721
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Yanai provides a data storage backup by migrating data
from a source data center to a target data center which can be
used in the event that the source data center is hit by a
major disaster. With respect to representative, independent
claim 1, the examiner finds that Yanai teaches steps (a), (b),
(c) and (g). Although Yanai does not explicitly disclose
steps (d), (e) and (f), the examiner finds that these steps
would have been obvious to the artisan when the data transfer
of Yanai is applied to an intentional data migration of a data
center as described in the admitted prior art [answer, pages
3-5].
Appellant makes three main arguments in response to
the rejection. First, appellant argues that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because
Yanai and the admitted prior art do not teach steps (d), (e)
and (f) of claim 1. Second, appellant argues that the only
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007