Appeal No. 2001-0462
Application 08/885,325
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer, as amplified here, we sustain the rejection of all claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since appellants have indicated
at the bottom of page 5 of the brief that all claims on appeal
fall together, and because appellants' arguments beginning at
page 6 of the brief consider independent claims 1, 20 and 34 in a
corresponding equivalent manner, we take as a representative
claim for our consideration independent claim 20. Even among
these claims there are no arguments directed as to any specific
feature but only to the general features common to each of them.
Therefore, since there are also no arguments presented as to any
dependent claim, they all fall with our consideration of
representative claim 20 on appeal.
The examiner appears to rely upon McGillis to provide a
structural environment in which the system of Akyürek may be
implemented. The entire disk storage subsystem 12 of Figure 1 of
McGillis provides an environment in which to implement the
adaptive block rearrangement system for disks in Akyürek. It is
noted that page 96 of that reference details prior art computer
systems comparable to McGillis and known to Akyürek such as those
specifically listed at the top of page 97 of that reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007