Appeal No. 2003-1515
Application No. 09/364,014
various risks and probabilities or complex equations and
functions to perform such analysis (col. 7, lines 10-12).
In view of the discussion above, we find that the claimed
step of “executing a first sub-system risk test,” as recited in
the independent claims, is absent in the method for evaluating
failure in a storage system of Skeie. Accordingly, since the
Examiner has failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie
case of anticipation, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims
claim 1-9, 11-22 and 24-30 over Skeie cannot be sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10
and 23, we note that the Examiner further relies on Hill for
teaching the step of logging the results (final, page 7).
However, similar to Skeie, Hill provides no teaching related to
executing a risk test and therefore, cannot overcome the
deficiencies of Skeie discussed above. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 23 over
Skeie and Hill.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007