Ex Parte COULSON et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2003-1505                                                        
          Application No. 09/218,037                                                  
          David M. Jacobson et al. (Jacobson), “Disk scheduling algorithms            
          based on rotational position,” HP Laboratories Technical Report,            
          HPL-CSP-91-7rev1, 1995.                                                     
          Joseph Ciotti (Ciotti), “Mapping The Globe,” Aerospace Lab                  
          Publication, 1997.                                                          
               Claims 1-3, 12-15, 26, 28 and 29-34 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen.                         
               Claims 1-3, 12-15, 26, 28 and 29-34 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Jacobson.            
               Claims 4-7 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Jacobson and further            
          in view of any one of Ciotti or Pinheiro.                                   
               Claims 8-11, 21-25 and 272 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Jacobson and           
          further in view of any one of Rowan, Glaser or Lecourtier.                  
               We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 24, mailed                  
          February 28, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal           
          brief (Paper No. 23, filed December 26, 2002) and to the reply              
          brief (Paper No. 25, filed April 28, 2003) for Appellants’                  
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     



               2  We observe that claim 27 recites “a host computer” in the preamble, 
          consistent with that of claim 26.  Therefore claim 27 should probably be    
          dependent upon claim 26, instead of claim 25, and be rejected on the same   
          basis as claims 26 and 28.                                                  
                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007