Appeal No. 2003-1603
Application No. 09/376,832
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate on
page 3 of the Brief that the claims all stand or fall together.
Further, appellants have presented no arguments as to the
separate patentability of any claims. Accordingly, we will
address the claims as a single group with independent claim 6 as
representative.
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 affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 6 through 8.
Appellants' sole argument (Brief, pages 3-4) is that neither
Dias nor Blea "mention[s] taking a snapshot such that a read or
write request can be made to any volume." Appellants contend
(Brief, page 3) that the portions of Blea referenced by the
examiner states that when pointers for the virtual tracks
containing source data are copied to the virtual track table of
the work volume, updates to the source volume are suspended,
"seeming to contradict the Examiner's allegation."
The examiner explains (Answer, page 6) that as the claim
language has "read" and "write" in the alternative, only one is
required, not both. "Therefore, update (write) to source volume
does not impact while read to any volume."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007