Appeal No. 2001-0517
Application No. 08/586,611
In this case, we find that the examiner has not explained how he
is combining the various features from Choudhary and Osterlund to
the disclosure in Martins. Instead, the examiner merely states
in his obviousness statement that the teachings of Choudhary and
Osterlund would have been obvious to be combined with the
teachings of Martins. The examiner has not established any
factual basis in each of these references where an artisan would
have been motivated to combine these references. We, instead,
agree with the appellants’ position that the processor in Martins
is devoid of any capability of dynamically determining an optimum
block size for its hard drive. Instead, Martins is concerned
with optimizing the block length near its optimum values by
adapting to the channel bit error rate, see page 737. As the
examiner admits, Martins does not show the use of benchmarking in
connection with a hard drive. Answer at page 4. We find that
Choudhary is directed to a different type of problem. In
Choudhary, the performance results capture the effects of block
size, cache size, ratio of secondary and primary cache sizes,
and, write-through and write-back protocols on hit ratios, access
times, relative speedups and bus utilizations, see page 409.
Choudhary also does not disclose any method or function which
when executed by the processor attempts to optimize the block
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007