Appeal No. 2005-1270 6
Application No. 09/798,169
partitioning the storage device and, therefore, there is nothing in Houston regarding a
manager that manages a partition.
The examiner’s counter is that the claimed “processor” is broad enough to cover
anything, including a system, that processes something. Since the claims do not recite
a CPU or microprocessor, the examiner argues, the term “processor” should not be
limited to such. Accordingly, since a “processor” may be interpreted to be a system that
processes, according to the examiner, the non-volatile memory disclosed in Houston’s
abstract is included in Houston’s “processor.” With regard to a “partition,” the examiner
points out that since Houston’s abstract teaches the storage of an error log in the non-
volatile memory of the storage device, the error log must be some separate portion, or
“partition” of the larger storage device. The examiner further points out that appellants
have not given a “partition” any particular meaning with respect to the instant invention
and appellants have not pointed out specifically how such a “partition” is to be
“managed.”
Our analysis must begin with the claim itself. Claim 9 requires a method within a
data processing system for saving data. Clearly, Houston deals with data processing
and does teach the saving of data (e.g., an error log) within that data processing
system.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007