Appeal 2007-0265
Application 09/988,853
Rather than arguing the rejections of claims 5, 11, 17, 19, 24, 30, 36,
42, 47 and 51 separately, the Appellants rely on their aforementioned
argument. (Br. 15-17.) Unpersuaded by these arguments, we also affirm the
rejections of these claims.
Assuming arguendo that the representative claim did require logically
grouping two elements held by a storage device, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Sicola "instruct[s] a first data replication facility of a
first electronic device in the storage network to logically associate a first
data structure and a second data structure held by a locally accessible storage
device, wherein the logical association defines a group (see abstract and
column 20, lines 38-55. . . ." (Id. 4.) More specifically, "[a]s shown in
FIG. 17, at step 1700 [of the reference], the logical unit members S1 through
Sn (where 'n' can be any number) of an association set 'S' are established by
a system user." (Col. 20, ll. 40-43.) Sicola explains that "[a]n association
set is a group of logical units (a set of one more remote copy sets) on a local
or remote pair of array controllers with attributes for logging and failover
that are selectable by a system user." (Col. 19, ll. 58-61.) As noted by the
Examiner, the reference explains that logical units are the "same as volumes,
see column 8, line 53. . . ." (Answer 19.) Because the logical units of data
that are grouped into association sets are on the same local array controllers
or on the same remote array controllers, we find that Sicola logically groups
two elements held by a storage device.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013