Appeal No. 2003-1515
Application No. 09/364,014
We agree with Appellants that the claim does require that
the level of risk associated with the sub-system be measured by a
risk test which, in effect, is subjecting the sub-system to a
test or procedure for establishing the risk. Although the claim
does not recite executing the risk test whether or not a failure
occurs, as argued by the Examiner (answer, page 5), the step of
executing a sub-system risk test, as correctly defined by
Appellants, does clearly require that the system be subjected to
a procedure for evaluating risk.
Having established the meaning of the claimed term, we now
address the arguments related to the teachings of the reference
relied on by the Examiner. Initially, it is noted that a
rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each
and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a
single prior art reference. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
We observe that Skeie relates to a method for analyzing a
storage system and how partial or full failure of one component
adversely affects the system operation and notifying the user of
the component failure, its criticality and its effect on data
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007