Appeal 2007-0398
Application 10/308,445
1 Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have
2 been obvious. More specifically, Appellants contend that:
3 (1) as to claims 11, 16, and 29, even if combined the reference
4 disclosures do not result in “decoding of the pathnames . . . for the
5 group of related snapshot systems” (Br. 31); and
6 (2) as to claims 20, 27, 36, and 38, improper hindsight has been used
7 as the references fail to show a production file system configured to
8 have related snapshot file systems (Br. 44, 47, and 50).
9 The Examiner contends that claims 11, 16, and 29 do not recite “decoding
10 the pathnames” (Answer 49) and any hindsight reasoning has been proper
11 (Answer 53-56).
12 We reverse.
13 ISSUES
14 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish one
15 skilled in the art would have combined Chen and DeKoning to provide
16 access to “a group of related snapshot file systems . . . ” as required by
17 claims 11, 16, and 29?
18 Has Appellant shown that the Examiner has failed to establish one
19 skilled in the art would have combined Chen and DeKoning and Patel to
20 provide a server for operating “related snapshot file systems . . . ” as
21 required by claims 20, 27, 36, and 38?
22
23 FINDINGS OF FACT
24 Appellants invented a client-server protocol method and server for
25 directory access of snapshot file storage systems (Specification 13:11-12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013