Appeal No. 2002-0748
Application No. 09/053,379
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kanfi 5,559,991 Sep. 24, 1996
Crouse et al. (Crouse) 5,764,972 Jun. 9, 1998
(effective filing date Feb. 1, 1993)
Claims 1 through 8, 10, 15 through 28, 30 and 35 through 41
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kanfi in view of Crouse.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 16 and 20)
and the answer (paper number 18) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
8, 10, 15 through 28, 30 and 35 through 41.
The file backup technique disclosed by Kanfi is concerned
with redundant blocks of data in a single file (e.g., file F1) in
a single computer (e.g., PC 10-1) in a computer network 20
(Figure 1). A signature is created by PC 10-1 for each block of
the file F1 to be archived by archival computer 110 in memory 30-
1 during an archival operation (column 2, lines 65 through 67).
During a subsequent archival operation involving the same file F1
and the PC 10-1, only blocks with changed signatures are sent to
the archival memory 30-1 (column 3, lines 1 through 5). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007