Appeal No. 2001-2119
Application No. 08/826,744
modification of the storage devices of Kassatly to be disk
drives. Initially, we would point out that, although “disk
drive” language appears in independent claim 12, which is
part of Appellants’ first suggested claim grouping, no such
language is recited in representative claim 2, the claim
specifically argued by Appellant in the Brief.
Notwithstanding this lack of disk drive recitation in claim
2, we are in agreement with the Examiner (Answer, page 10)
that no motivation is needed to modify the storage devices
of Kassatly to become disk drives since Kassatly clearly
discloses a system which is applicable to and encompasses
disk drive storage systems (e.g., Kassatly, column 61, lines
23-50).
We also find, contrary to Appellant’s contention, that
the Examiner’s line of reasoning establishes clear
motivation for modifying Kassatly with the mirrored disk
array of Windrem. We find no convincing arguments from
Appellant that would convince us of any error in the
Examiner’s assertion of obviousness to the skilled artisan
of adding a mirrored storage device configuration providing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007