Appeal No. 2002-2100
Application No. 09/042,334
As emphasized by Appellant at pages 2 and 3 of the Reply
Brief, the language of each of the claims on appeal makes a
distinction between the data storing device and the redundant
data storing unit. As argued by Appellant, the claims require
the calculating and storing of redundant data in a data storing
unit, which data is then transferred to the data storing device
during a period when the data storing device is not scheduled to
be accessed for reads or writes.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Wilkes coincides
with that of Appellant, i.e., during a deferral period, in which
redundant parity calculation is deferred until disk “idle” is
determined, only “marker” information (identifying areas of
unprotected data on the disk storing device 24), not calculated
redundant data as claimed, is stored in data storing unit 13.
During Wilkes’ disk “idle” period, redundant parity data is
calculated and transferred directly to data storing device 24
while the “marker” information in data storing unit 13 is cleared
(Wilkes, column 8, lines 49-57).
We recognize that the Examiner, apparently recognizing that
in Wilkes’ described invention there is no explicit disclosure of
the storing of calculated redundant data in memory 13,
nevertheless suggests (Answer, pages 6 and 9) that even the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007