Appeal No. 2001-0517
Application No. 08/586,611
We disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of claim 8
and consequently the interpretation of the other claims since the
same or similar feature appears in the other claims. Our reading
of the claim states that it requires a processor, a hard drive
and a function, wherein, when executed by the processor, the
function determines an optimal access block size of the hard
drive by benchmarking accesses to the hard drive for a plurality
of benchmarking access block sizes in accordance with a set of
benchmarking parameters. It is clearly recited in the claim that
the processor has embedded in it a function which determines for
a particular hard drive in use the optimum transfer block size
when that function is executed by the processor during its
processing operation. Even though the word dynamic does not
appear as such in the claim, the claim requires a dynamic
processing as the processor is executing the function. This
interpretation is further illustrated by the disclosure of
appellants in Figures 3-6. Having established the interpretation
of claim 8, we now analyze claim 8 and the rejection of claim 8.
The examiner rejects claims 1, 3-8 and 10-14 at pages 3, 4
and 5 of the examiner’s answer. The examiner concludes (id. at
page 4) that:
It would have been obvious . . . to combine Choudhary
with Martins because it would provide for a system to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007