Appeal No. 2006-1225
Application No. 10/244,825
regard, we agree with Appellants that the system in Ogata allows
data to pass between a switch and storage system by only the host
which is authorized to access the storage device according to
which host has write-in authority (brief, page 10).
Although Ogata uses one or the other switch for access to
the storage devices, we also agree with Appellants that it only
constrains access to the switch, not to the storage devices, as
recited in the claims (reply brief, page 2). As such, if any one
of the switches in Ogata is characterized as the claimed switch,
it cannot restrict access to the storage device such that data
only passes to the storage devices from that switch since the
storage device is also accessible from the other switch. What a
reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d
380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). Here, the Examiner’s interpretation of the alternate
switches as the claimed switch grouped with the storage device
allows access through another switch which is inconsistent with
the claimed limitations.
In view of the discussion above, we find that the claimed
“grouping a switch and the storage device included in the storage
system” and “restricting access to the storage device from a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007