Appeal No. 2002-1399
Application No. 09/121,254
The examiner interprets the limitations related to a “data volume file” as broadly
as the terms reasonably allow. A “data volume” would normally refer to a physical
collection of data on a particular physical data carrier. However, in view of appellants’
disclosure, the “particular data volume file” recited in instant claim 1 refers to what is, in
essence, a virtual data volume -- that which only appears to be a physical data volume
on a particular magnetic tape. The scope of claim 1 includes “data volumes” on what
appellants refer to as “virtual tapes.” (See spec. at 5, l. 28 - 6, l. 2.)
The examiner thus interprets the claim 1 “data volume” file as inclusive of a
“message” file in the context of Yaker. A digitized message in Yaker would be stored in
an electronic file format, whether stored on tape or on a hard disk. Whether or not the
caller (i.e., the “remote user”) regards the message content as a “file” is unimportant, in
view of the broad recitations of claim 1. Further, Yaker at least suggests that the
expiration date of the voice message be included as part of the voice message file,
since system 100 judges the timeliness of each separate and individual voice message.
In answer to appellants’ remarks in the Brief (at 7-8) that Yaker is “non-
analogous prior art” and “not a mass data storage system,” we refer to the examiner’s
responsive arguments in the Answer. We add that, whatever may be appellants’
intended meaning of the phrase “mass data storage system,” instant claim 1 does not
contain the terminology.
Further, we disagree that “Yaker is not at all concerned with the efficiency of
storage space use....” (Brief at 8.) Yaker expressly teaches that enabling a caller to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007