Appeal No. 2001-1571
Application 08/958,844
lines 5 and 6)”, which limitation is related to the preamble “a
data read command of host computer is less than a unit storage
region of a data transmission storage device within a disk drive”
(Claim 3, lines 2 and 3). Therefore we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 3.
Considering the last independent claim i.e. claim 6, we do
not find in the Examiner’s analysis where the Ng reference
discloses a teaching dealing with the limitation of “second data
comprising all data not included in said first data and taken
from said corresponding data, and storing said second data in a
partial region of said unit storage region” (Claim 6, lines 8-
10), which is related to the recitation in the preamble, “a data
read command of a host computer is larger than a unit storage
region of a data transmission storage device within a disk drive”
(Claim 6, lines 2 and 3). In our view, Ng does not get involved
with the reading/writing data in any partial region.
Furthermore, Ng does not disclose making a request where the DAR
is larger than a unit storage region. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 6 over Ng.
Since Ng does not anticipate the limitation of each of the
independent claims 1, 3 and 6, Ng cannot anticipate the dependent
claims.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007