Appeal No. 2003-1517
Application No. 09/389,192
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through
9, 11 through 22, and 24 through 30 and also the obviousness
rejection of claims 10 and 23.
Each independent method claim (claims 1, 6, and 12) recites
executing or providing sub-system risk tests which generate
outputs and assessing risk levels or ranks based on the outputs
of the tests. The independent system claims (claims 14, 19, and
25) recite the means for executing or providing sub-system risk
tests which generate outputs and means for assessing risk levels
or ranks based on the outputs of the tests. Independent claim 27
recites instructions for executing sub-system risk tests which
generate outputs and instructions for assessing risk levels based
on the outputs of the tests. Thus, all of the claims require
sub-system risk tests, a generation of outputs by the tests, and
an assessment of risk level based on the risk test outputs.
The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, page 2) that Skeie's
disclosure in column 2, lines 52-58 of "analyzing the entire
storage system (computing system) and evaluating how partial or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007