Appeal 2007-0243
Application 09/777,002
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is sustained because
it is well known in the art to store data at a storage node based upon a shared
interest. The obviousness rejection of claims 5, 14 and 15 is sustained
because the skilled artisan would have known to store and access data at a
particular located based upon “desired criteria.” The same is true for the
“logical volume of data” presented for storage in claims 6 and 7. Claim 22
is sustained for all of the reasons expressed supra for claim 1. With respect
to claim 27, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for
Carter to maintain state information for each of the storage nodes (Answer
19).
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 to 4, 13, 16 to 21, 23 to 26, and
28 to 30 is sustained because Appellants have not presented any patentability
arguments for these claims apart from the arguments presented for claim 1.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is sustained for all of the
reasons expressed supra in connection with claim 1.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has demonstrated the obviousness of claims 1 to 7 and
12 to 30.
ORDER
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 7 and 12 to 30 are affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013