Appeal No. 2006-0570 6
Application No. 09/706,960
data, citing column 5, line 3 et seq. However, we have reviewed the cited portions of
Halladay and find no disclosure of a browser, as claimed. Instead, we find a disclosure of
a cold boot data backup system that interposes a data file monitor between a file system
and an application program, an application program activation process native to the
computer system,, and an application program resident on the computer system to create
a cold boot floppy disk which is used to cold boot the computer system in the event the
memory must be restored.
The examiner contends that a “browser” is “simply something used for browsing”
(answer-page 16), but it is clear to us, from the claim language and the disclosure in the
instant specification, at page 4, line 20, that the backup routine must be a “browser”
capable of executing on a processor in each node “to gain access to the network 12.”
Thus, even if “browser is interpreted as meaning something other than a “Web browser,” it
is clear that it is software which permits access to some network. The examiner has not
shown that there is any such “browser” in Halladay. The examiner points to column 5, line
3 et seq. in Halladay for a browser, but we have reviewed that portion of Halladay and find
no such suggestion of any browser, even under a broad interpretation of that term.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
Turning, finally, to the rejection of independent claim 28, and of dependent claim 33
under 35 U.S.C. §103, the examiner relies on Halladay, Dixon, and Reynolds, citing Dixon
for formatting comprising scanning a storage device to determine portions of the storage
device that are defective, and storing the image in portions of the storage device other
than the portions that are defective, and mapping out defective portions of a disk during
formatting.
Whether or not Dixon discloses what the examiner alleges, Dixon clearly does not
provide for the deficiencies noted supra, anent the “flag” with regard to Halliday and
Reynolds. Since claim 28 also includes a recitation of this flag set in response to a fault,
the flag indicating that the system has experienced a fault, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 28 ad 33 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Since we have not sustained any of the rejections, the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1-11, 14, 20, 28, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007