Appeal 2007-0265
Application 09/988,853
Here, the Appellants argue claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, 20-23, 25-29,
31-35, 37-41, 43-46 and 48-50, which are subject to the same ground of
rejection, as a group. (Br. 12-15). We select claim 21 as the sole claim on
which to decide the appeal of the group.
III. ISSUE
With the aforementioned representation in mind, rather than reiterate
the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the issue therebetween. The
Examiner makes the following findings.
As to claim 21, Sicola et al. teaches, in a storage network (see
column 7, lines 1-11), a method to create a replica of selected
data in the storage network (see column 1, lines 5-10), the
method comprising the steps of: instructing a first data
replication facility at a first electronic device in the storage
network to track changes to one or more storage locations of a
first storage medium that correspond to the selected data (see
column 12, lines 17-34). . . .
(Answer 7.) Based on the premise that "[i]ndependent claims 1, 8, 13, 21,
33 and 45 all require the element of logically grouping two elements held by
a storage device (regardless of the elements being structures, data structures,
selected data, or one or more volumes) into a group, wherein said group is a
single data set," (Appeal Br. 12-13), the Appellants argue, "Sicola fails to
disclose this step of grouping two elements held by a storage device into a
group." (Id. 13.) The Examiner "submits that independent claim[ ] 21 . . .
make[s] no mention of grouping any kind." (Answer 17.) Therefore, the
issue is whether the representative claim requires logically grouping two
elements held by a storage device.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013