Appeal No. 2004-1899
Application No. 09/608,469
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 1, 24, and 45, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Beeler. In particular, the
Examiner directs attention to Beeler’s Figures 1 and 9 along with the accompanying
description at columns 3, 10, and 11 of Beeler.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Beeler to disclose every
limitation in independent claims 1, 24, and 45 as is required to support a rejection based
on anticipation. In the arguments appearing at pages 8 and 10 of the Brief and page 2
of the Reply brief, Appellants’ assertions focus on the contention that, in contrast to the
claimed invention, Beeler does not disclose that a target server (appealed claim 1) or a
network file server (appealed claims 24 and 45) provides client access to the file system
concurrently with file system migration from a source server to the target or network
server.
After reviewing the Beeler reference in light of the arguments of record, we are in
general agreement with Appellants’ position as expressed in the Briefs. Our
interpretation of the disclosure of Beeler coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., during file
transfer, client access to the file system for read/write operations is to the source server
and not the target server. In our view, this operation of the system of Beeler is verified
by Beeler’s disclosure at column 18, lines 20-51 in conjunction with the flow chart
illustrated in Figure 32 of Beeler. As described, if a file to be replicated in target server
310 is in an open status as a result of being opened and in use by another application,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007