Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
information and thus is implemented in the file system to the
extent claimed.”
Appellants offer no explanation as to why the claim language
should not, or could not, be so broadly interpreted. Accordingly,
we will sustain the rejection of claim 137 (Group IV) under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, as to claim 138 (Group V), this claim recites that
the ECC functionality is implemented in hardware in the data
storage system. The examiner included this claim in the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combination of either Zhang or
Johnson, in view of Leedy, since it was understood that the ECC
functionality of Leedy was implemented in hardware in the data
storage system, as explained at pages 9-10 of the answer.
Appellants offer no rationale to rebut the examiner’s
seemingly reasonable conclusion, arguing, simply, that it is not
only the ECC functionality implemented in hardware that is required
but that it is implemented in hardware in a data storage system
(brief-page 10).
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007