Appeal No. 2002-1399
Application No. 09/121,254
Appellants submit (Brief at 6) that, “in contrast to” Yaker, the claimed invention
includes a remote user selectively designating a particular data volume file for
automatic deletion by the virtual tape system after a predetermined expiration date,
included as part of the data volume, has elapsed. Appellants have underlined
“designates a particular data volume file” and “expiration date included as part of the
data volume.” On the next page of the Brief, appellants have underlined “the virtual
tape system.” Appellants do not explain how the terms might be thought to distinguish
over the process disclosed by Yaker, and appear not to rely on any special meanings
with respect to the particular terms recited.
Although appellants provide an example of what may be considered a “virtual
tape system” (spec. at 2), appellants have not set forth any particular definition for
“virtual tape system” in the instant disclosure, nor alleged that the term is limited to any
particular recognized meaning in the art. Nor have appellants traversed the examiner’s
finding that a “virtual” tape system does not differ in substance from a magnetic tape
system. In any event, Yaker’s disclosure of storing voice messages in digital form, in
any suitable devices such as magnetic tape recorders and computer memory devices
such as hard drives, would appear to anticipate a “virtual tape system,” whether Yaker’s
system were to use magnetic tape and hard drives, or hard drives without magnetic
tape. That is, from a caller’s perspective the message is stored as a voice message on
magnetic tape; whether, in actuality, the message is stored on a tape, in RAM, on a
hard drive, or stored in a combination thereof is of no concern to the caller.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007