Appeal No. 2001-2119
Application No. 08/826,744
re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051-52, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to independent claim 2, the representative
claim for Appellant’s first suggested grouping (including
claims 2, 8, 9, and 12), Appellant asserts a failure by the
Examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
since proper motivation for the proposed combination of
Kassatly and Windrem has not been established. In
particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 9 and 10) that
the Examiner has provided no motivation to modify the
storage devices of Kassatly to become disk drives.
Appellant further asserts (id.) a lack of motivation to then
further modify the disk drives to provide a mirrored
configuration.
After careful review of the Kassatly and Windrem
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the
Answer. In particular, we find Appellant’s arguments to be
misplaced related to the issue of obviousness of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007