Appeal No. 2006-1783
Application No. 09/183,694
exist simultaneously. While Jones may have the capability of
processing multiple threads, the Examiner has not pointed to any
part of the reference that would have suggested the existence of
a plurality of threads simultaneously in combination with the
disk controller of Krakirian to minimize interrupts associated
with the commands. Accordingly, based on the weight of the
evidence and the arguments presented by the Examiner and
Appellants, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s decision
and not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 3 over the
combination of Krakirian and Jones.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, we
note that the Examiner further relies on Bean for the additional
features recited in these dependent claims. However, the
Examiner has not pointed to any convincing rationale in modifying
Krakirian or the combination of Krakirian and Jones with the
teachings of Bean that would have overcome the deficiencies of
the applied prior art as discussed above with respect to claims 3
and 21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 23-25 over Krakirian in combination with
Bean, nor of claims 16-20 over Krakirian and Jones in combination
with Bean.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007