Appeal No. 1999-2263
Application 08/581,721
With respect to appellant’s first argument, the
examiner responds that Yanai inherently performs steps (d) and
(f), and that step (e) is suggested by the combined teachings
of Yanai and the prior art data center migrations. With
respect to appellant’s second argument, the examiner responds
that the artisan would have recognized the obviousness of
applying Yanai’s mirroring method to a data center migration
event as described in the prior art. With respect to
appellant’s third argument, the examiner responds that the
Beta Test evidence submitted by appellant as part of the
specification of this application does not establish
nonobviousness of the claimed invention [answer, pages 6-11].
Appellant responds that the claimed invention is
directed to the migration of applications from a source
mainframe to a target mainframe, and not just the transfer of
data for backup purposes [reply brief].
After a careful review of the record in this case, we
agree with the position argued by appellant. In our view, the
disposition of this appeal is determined by appellant’s second
argument discussed above. We agree with appellant that there
is no suggestion within the applied prior art that the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007