Appeal 2006-2843
Application 09/872,970
We further find no persuasive argument from Appellants which
convinces us of any error in the Examiner’s finding that the logical unit
numbers (LUNs) described by Blumenau correspond to the claimed “block”
on a virtual disk. Further, although Appellants’ arguments at pages 8 and 9
of the Reply Brief, emphasize that the language of claim 24 requires that the
operation of specifying a block occurs “within the operation,” we fail to see
how the specified block access disclosed by Blumenau could exist anytime
or anyplace except “within the operation” of accessing a virtual disk.
Accordingly, since it is our view that the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness based on the combination of Blumenau and Casorso has not
been overcome by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 24, as well as claims 25-30
and 34 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
CONCLUSION
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-23 and 36-40, but
have sustained the rejection of claims 24-30 and 34. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting appealed claims 1-30, 34, and 36-40 is
affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013