Appeal No. 2001-2119
Application No. 08/826,744
in accordance with the requirements of appealed claim 4.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 6 and 16 in which the disk array
teachings of Windrem are relied upon to address the
particular features of these claims. For all of the reasons
previously discussed, we remain convinced of the obviousness
to the skilled artisan of modifying the applied prior art
references with the addition of redundant disk drives as
taught by Windrem to protect against disk drive failure. We
are further unpersuaded by Appellant’s assertion (Brief,
page 21) that the Examiner has not shown how Windrem
provides for a plurality of recording and reproducing
devices, with each device having all of the components such
as the receiving means, the demultiplexing means, etc., as
set forth in base claims 1 and 14. We agree with the
Examiner (Answer, page 14) that, in contrast to Appellant’s
assertion, the language of Appellant’s claims 6 and 16 does
not require that the plurality of recording and reproducing
devices each have all of the various components recited in
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007