Appeal No. 2006-1332 Page 13
Application No. 09/548,687
distributing data access tasks between the first processor and the second processor, as
implied by the appellant's argument, but instead recites applying a striping, the result of
which is to distribute data access tasks between the two processors. The appellant's
specification confirms this distinction by explaining that "sharing of the data access
workload is accomplished using a dynamic workload distribution policy such as data
striping between the redundancy groups. Data striping refers to the segmentation of a
sequence of data (such as a single file) such that each segment is stored on a different
storage device in a cyclical manner." (Spec., p. 12, ll. 3-7.)
2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). The question of
obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59
USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007