Appeal 2007-0243
Application 09/777,002
Appellants contend that Carter is directed to a method of accessing a
shared memory structure comprised of a number of nodes by a plurality of
clients, and that Carter does not use context in the servicing of a data storage
request (Br. 5 to 8).
The Examiner acknowledges that “Carter fails to expressly disclose
such contexts/data including political, economic, geographic, or topological
context,” but concludes “it is clear Carter teaches data storage management
processes that select one or more of the storage nodes to serve a data storage
request based at least in part upon the particular contexts associated with
each of the storage nodes since conventional data storage management
processes need to determine where, or to which node or nodes, the requested
data should be stored, (i.e. conventional data storage management processes
need to first know where data is stored before the storage management
processes select the location to store updates to the data), (Carter, col. 6,
lines 3-21, and col. 7, lines 42-60)” (Answer 13 and 14). Thus, the
“Examiner maintains it was well known in the art at the time of the claimed
invention for storage nodes to contain context including political,
economical, geographical, and topological context” (Answer 13).
ISSUE
Does the context associated with a storage node patentably distinguish
the claimed invention over an ordinary storage node in the applied prior art?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013