Appeal No. 2003-1505
Application No. 09/218,037
out by Appellants (brief, starting at page 22), Chen uses a disk
controller for controlling the operation of the disk drive, which
is sufficient to establish that the optimization is performed by
a component other than the host processor. The disk scheduler
only schedules the access to data on each individual disk drive
(col. 7, lines 8 & 9) and is a component of the video server
(col. 7, lines 10-13). However, merely processing requests and
residing in the server are not sufficient to establish that the
disk scheduler is a host processor.
We note that claims 12, 26, 29, 31 and 33 also include
similar limitations related to the optimization of access
performance of a disk by a host processor which, as discussed
above with respect to claim 1, are absent in Chen. Accordingly,
since the Examiner has failed to meet the burden of providing a
prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 12, 26, 29, 31 and 33 as well as their dependent claim
2, 3, 13-15, 28, 30, 32 and 34 over Chen cannot be sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-3,
12-15, 26, 28 and 29-34 over Chen and Jacobson, we note that the
Examiner further relies on Jacobson for teaching the scheduling
algorithms that take the rotational position into account
(answer, pages 9 & 10). However, similar to Chen, the Examiner
has not pointed to any disclosure in Jacobson that relates to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007