Appeal No. 2003-0573
Application No. 08/931,125
In our original decision, we determined that the Examiner had
established a prima facie case of anticipation which had not been
persuasively rebutted by any convincing arguments from Appellant.
In particular, we found to be unpersuasive Appellant’s contention
that Jones does not disclose a one-to-one caching arrangement in a
RAID-5 disk system.
Appellant now asserts in this request that claim 1, the
representative claim for Appellant’s grouping including claims 1,
2, and 6, also requires a dedicated region for storing parity
information. In making this assertion, Appellant points to
language in claim 1 which recites memory devices “. . . having a
first region for sequentially storing parity information” and the
obtaining of parity information “. . . from said first region” of
the memory devices. In Appellant’s view (Request, pages 4 and 5),
this language of claim 1 distinguishes over a RAID-5 system, such
as discussed in Jones, in which parity data is distributed
throughout the disk drives.
In reviewing the arguments in this Request, we make the
observation that any arguments related to the requirement of a
dedicated parity information storing region in appealed claim 1,
and any asserted absence of such feature in Jones with respect to
claim 1, were not made in the Briefs before us on appeal. An
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007