Appeal 2006-2536
Application 10/611,127
unambiguous, we agree with the Examiner that there is no compelling
reason to give the phrase weight.2
IV. SELECTING ANY ONE OF THE CONTROLLERS
AS AN ACTIVE CONTROLLER
The Examiner finds, "Under the conditions that HBA (6b) and
HBA (6c) connections fail to their respective hubs (10a, 10b), Burton's
system would include only two possible paths, each having a unique host
connected to a different controller (i.e. 4a to 14a and 4b to 14b). Burton's
system would then work to identify which of the two paths is to be
preferred." (Answer 5.) The Appellants argue that "the Examiner had
apparently made up a 'condition' that is not taught or suggested by Burton."
(Reply Br. 2.) They further argue, "assuming arguendo that the 'condition'
. . . can be inferred from the teachings of Burton, Burton still does not teach
or suggest the solution to such 'condition,' which is 'selecting any one of said
active-passive pair of storage controllers as an active storage controller'. . . ."
(Id. 3.) Therefore, the issue is whether Burton responds to the situation
wherein two requesters have access only to different ones of an active-
passive pair of storage controllers by selecting any one of the controllers as
an active controller.
"Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two-
step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the
2 Assuming arguendo that we give the expression patentable weight,
however, Burton anticipates it because the Appellants do not allege, let alone
show, that logic unit thrashing occurs in the reference. Thus, Burton avoids
potential logic unit thrashing.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013