Appeal 2007-0398
Application 10/308,445
1 Appellants’ method and server for directory access of snapshot file
2 storage systems may operate with plural “related snapshot file systems” or
3 “a snapshot file system” (Specification 30:15).
4 DeKoning describes having “a snapshot” (singular) (col. 2, l. 29) in
5 the mirror (see col. 5, ll. 38-57).
6 All claims before us require plural related snapshot systems which are
7 configured according to claimed file structure.
8
9 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
10 On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
11 has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection. Appellant may
12 sustain this burden by showing that, where the Examiner relies on a
13 combination of disclosures, the Examiner failed to provide sufficient
14 evidence to show that one having ordinary skill in the art would have done
15 what Appellant did. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479
16 (1966); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
17 Cir. 2006); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
18 Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360-1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir.
19 2006).
20
21 ANALYSIS
22 The Examiner correctly shows where at least one of each of the
23 claimed elements appears in the Chen, DeKoning, and Patel prior art
24 references. Further, the Examiner correctly combines first the Chen and
25 DeKoning and then the Chen, DeKoning, and Patel prior art references with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013