Appeal 2007-0426
Application 10/145,307
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants urge that the
logical units replaced by Golasky are not physical entities and instead, reside
on a physical device while these units are not themselves physical devices
(Br. 12). Based on such interpretation, Appellants argue that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not combine these different entities disclosed by the
references to arrive at the claimed invention (Br. 13). Therefore, the issue
turns on whether there is a legally sufficient justification for combining the
disclosures of Dunphy and Golasky and, if so, whether the combination of
the applied references teaches the claimed subject matter including
“automatically assigning, within said logical volume definition, said first
unused, unassigned storage device to be a replacement primary device for
said first storage device.”
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal and are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Dunphy provides for a plurality of disk drives for storing data
in parallel as redundancy groups and a pool of R backup disk drives to
automatically substitute a replacement disk drive for a failed disk drive in a
redundancy group (Abstract; col. 5, ll. 10-18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013