Appeal No. 2003-0100
Application No. 09/298,663
selectively issuing tickets in response to requests, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Wobber and
Lawlor to “incorporate the use for selectively issuing data class
and access authorizations thereto in response to a request, in
the same conventional manner as disclosed by Lawlor” and that the
artisan would have been motivated “to selectively issue a data
class and access authorization in response to a request because
such a data class and access authorization would provide Wobber’s
system the enhanced capability increasing the speed and
performance of the system” (answer, page 4, first paragraph).
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 13, or any other
claim, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Instead,
the examiner has hit upon the crux of appellants’ invention as
the difference between the claimed invention and that disclosed
in Wobber and, unconvincingly, contends that the claimed subject
matter, including that difference, would have been obvious
because either the primary reference implicitly discloses that
“different” claim limitation or that a secondary reference
provides for that claimed limitation.
The instant claimed invention manages data access in a SAN
by receiving data access requests from principals and selectively
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007