Appeal No. 2003-1505
Application No. 09/218,037
OPINION
The focus of Appellants’ arguments is that Chen does not
disclose a host computer that performs the claimed optimization
for disk access (brief, page 15). Appellants specifically point
out that the disk scheduler 109 of Chen (Figures 3A-3B) is an
independent component of the video server 101 or may even be a
part of the disk controller 371 resident on the disk drive 103
(col. 9, lines 14-17) and therefore, is not a part of the host
processor (brief, page 22; reply brief, page 7). Additionally,
Appellants argue that since Chen fails to teach or suggest that
the function of a disk scheduler may be implemented in a host
processor, there is no reason for the skilled artisan to consider
the disk scheduler as a part of a host processor (brief, pages
24-28; reply brief, pages 8 & 9).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner relies on
the disk scheduler 109 of Chen being a part of video server 101
and asserts that “[t]he disk scheduler 109 renders the claimed
processor obvious because it processes requests.” (answer, page
14). Furthermore, to support that a host processor is taught by
Chen, the Examiner argues that the disk scheduler 109, as shown
in Figure 3A, is resident on the video server 101 (answer, page
6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007