Appeal No. 2006-1225
Application No. 10/244,825
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief (filed April 18, 2005), the reply brief (filed
July 20, 2005) and answer (mailed May 18, 2005)for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
Starting with claim 1, Appellants argue that Ogata merely
teaches (page 1) a server duplex system incorporating a working
server and a standby server (brief, page 7). Appellants point to
paragraph 18 of Ogata and argue that the reference describes two
servers 1A and 1B which can alternately access the auxiliary
storage unit whereas the claim requires grouping a switch and the
storage device such that data only passes to the storage device
from the switch (brief, page 8). Appellants also argue that
Ogata describes a duplex system (paragraphs 0021-0024) which does
not restrict access to the storage device from a server included
in the storage system such that data only passes to the storage
device from the switch (brief, pages 9-10).
In response, the Examiner argues by stating that the claim
is not limited to only one switch and data can pass to the
storage device from one or more switches (answer, page 5). The
Examiner further reasons that even if the claim is limited to a
single switching element, the claim is met since only one of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007