Appeal No. 2001-0956
Application No. 08/994,250
why one skilled in the art would be motivated to do so . . . ,”
and that “although DeKoning and Loechel disclose partitioned
cache memory, neither reference even remotely hints at
partitioning the cache memory for providing a virtual solid state
disk.” We agree with appellants’ arguments. We likewise agree
with the appellants’ argument (brief, pages 12 and 13) that the
examiner has resorted to impermissible hindsight by incorporating
appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention into the obviousness
reasoning. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
30 and 38 through 50 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 31 through 37 is
reversed because the teachings of Nelson do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Matsumoto, DeKoning and Loechel.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007