Appeal No. 2004-2227
Application No. 09/726,868
differences between first new data and the old data and for receiving
second delta difference data indicative of the differences between second
new data and the old data, the target storage device further operable for
storing the first and second delta difference data at the same point in time,
the target storage device further having a processor for processing the old
data with the first delta difference data to determine the first new data and
for processing the old data with the second delta difference data to
determine the second new data.
The following references are relied on by the examiner :
Bodnar 6,012,063 Jan. 4, 2000
Burns et al. (Burns) 6,018,747 Jan. 25, 2000
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 18-20, 22, [23], 24, 26-31 and 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Burns. On the
other hand, claims 4, 6, 13-17, 21 and 32-34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon
Burns in view of Bodnar.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief and reply brief for the appellants’ positions,
and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
1 Among the formal statements of the rejections of the claims on appeal as set forth
in the answer, there is no formal statement with respect to claim 23. This is consistent
with the final rejection although the cover sheet thereof indicates otherwise. Page 4 of
the brief also recognizes that claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 in the first
stated rejection above.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007