Appeal No. 2002-2238
Application No. 09/107,768
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies” in the cited references.)
Finally, we also observe that claim 17 recites numerous
elements, including:
(1) detecting a lock-up condition in the computer resulting
from a failed attempt to access data with the external storage
device;
(2) in response to detection of the lock-up condition,
enabling a user to replace the failed controller with a
replacement controller;
(3) after replacement of the failed controller with a
replacement controller, automatically updating the resource to
associate the replacement controller with the resource; and
(4) after updating the resource, recovering from the lock-up
condition by automatically resuming the failed attempt to access
data with the external storage device.
As correctly pointed out by the appellants, nowhere has the
examiner pointed to the description of these claimed elements, or
their teaching or suggestion, in the cited art.
Accordingly, for the reasons above, we reverse this
rejection.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007