Appeal 2007-0243
Application 09/777,002
FINDINGS OF FACT
As indicated supra, Appellants describe a method and apparatus in
which each of a plurality of storage nodes is associated with one or more
contexts (e.g., a political context, an economic context, a geographical
context or a network topological context). During a storage process, one or
more of the storage nodes is selected to service a data storage request based
at least in part upon the particular contexts associated with each of the
storage nodes.
Carter describes a data storage system that comprises a plurality of
nodes with each node existing at a physical location, an interface mechanism
coupled to each storage node for communicating storage access requests
with the storage nodes, and a data storage management process that selects
one or more of the storage nodes to serve a data storage request (col. 6, ll. 3
to 21).
McClain was cited by the Examiner for a teaching of “backing up
computer files at a remote site comprising: encrypting a storage message
before communicating, (col. 6, lines 48-53)” (Answer 12).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must
possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013