Appeal No. 2000-2091
Application 08/441,024
transferred data memory and the server supervisor
confirms that the server is in operation.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Agrawal et al. (Agrawal) 4,800,488 Jan. 24,
1989
Kobayashi 5,140,689 Aug. 18,
1992
Mary Baker & John Ousterhout (Baker), “Availability in the
Sprite Distributed File System,” Operating Systems Review,
pp. 1-4, April 1991.
William Genosa (Genosa), “Monitoring Performance with isostat
and vmstat,” System Administer, pp. 1-9, March/April 1994.
Claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi
in view of Agrawal and Baker. 2
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Agrawal, Baker and
Genosa.
2Claim 12 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Agrawal (Paper
No. 17, mailed April 30, 1999). Appellant canceled claim 12
in an amendment after final rejection (Paper No. 20, filed
August 30, 1999). The Examiner approved entry of this
amendment upon filing of a Notice of Appeal and an Appeal
Brief, as indicated in an advisory action (Paper No. 21,
mailed September 3, 1999).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007