Appeal No. 2006-1225
Application No. 10/244,825
server included in the storage system” is not taught or suggested
by Ogata. Claims 9 and 17 include similar limitations related to
grouping a switch and the storage device which, as discussed
above with respect to claim 1, are absent in Ogata. Accordingly,
since Ogata does not teach all the claimed limitations, the
Examiner has failed to meet the burden of providing a prima facie
case of anticipation and the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims
1-24 over Ogata cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007