Ex Parte DEKONING et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2001-0956                                                        
          Application No. 08/994,250                                                  

               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
                    1.  An apparatus in a primary RAID disk array                     
               controller including a plurality of disks comprising:                  
                    a first cache memory partition operable for caching;              
          and                                                                         
                    a second cache memory partition operable as a virtual             
          solid state disk storage device.                                            
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Matsumoto et al. (Matsumoto)     5,517,632      May  14, 1996               
          DeKoning et al. (DeKoning)    5,761,705      Jun.  2, 1998                  
                                                  (filed Apr.  4, 1996)               
          Loechel et al. (Loechel)      5,895,485      Apr. 20, 1999                  
                                                  (filed Feb. 24, 1997)               
          Nelson et al. (Nelson), “Caching in the Sprite Network File                 
          System,” ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 6(1), pp. 134-54             
          (Feb. 1988).                                                                
               Claims 1 through 30 and 38 through 50 stand rejected under             
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view             
          of DeKoning or Loechel.                                                     
               Claims 31 through 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of either DeKoning             
          or Loechel and in further view of Nelson.                                   
               Reference is made to the brief (paper number 14) and the               
          answer (paper number 15) for the respective positions of the                
          appellants and the examiner.                                                

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007