Appeal No. 2006-3096
Application No. 10/116,676
access (Answer 10). We do not find this response addresses Appellant’s argument
especially in light of the express teaching in Barry that access is disabled during the
renaming process. Moreover, we find that the Examiner has not identified an express
teaching in Basani which teaches that the access to files is not disabled during the
renaming process. Therefore, Examiner's response to the argument is not sufficient or
persuasive.
With respect to the Examiner’s responses in the Answer to Appellant’s arguments
concerning claim 1, we do not find that the Examiner has clearly addressed these
arguments and has not provided a convincing line of reasoning as to how the individual
references teach the claimed steps in a VSAM system for continued access to the files
during the renaming process. We find the Examiner’s reliance upon paragraph [0089] of
Basani does not clearly show or explain that access is maintained during the renaming
process. In light of this base deficiency, we additionally do not find that the Examiner
has provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have combined these two teaching to
achieve the claimed method in a VSAM system. From the above deficiencies, we cannot
find that the Examiner has met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims.
We additionally find similar deficiencies in the Examiner’s presentation of a
prima facie case of obviousness of independent claims 7 and 13 and their respective
dependent claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 7
and 13 and their respective dependent claims.
With respect to independent claim 18, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
made the requisite showing for claim 18 as with independent claim 1. We agree with
Appellant and find that the Examiner has not shown where either Barry or Basani teaches
or fairly suggests the claim language “at least one of the groups of old and new files
remains available for online access when either of the groups of files is renamed” which
is similar to that found in independent claim 1. Additionally, Appellant argues that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007