Appeal 2007-0426
Application 10/145,307
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161,
82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007)). “One of the ways in
which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner characterizes the logical units included in storage
device 14 of Golasky as the claimed storage devices whose failure is
detected by an agent module that assigns an unused and unassigned storage
device as the replacement for the failed storage device (Answer 14-16).
The Examiner reads the claimed storage devices on logical units 16 and 18
and asserts that they may be assigned as a substitute for a failed device if
that logical volume is not assigned (id.).
Appellants point to Figure 1 of Golasky and argue that, instead of
assigning a storage device, the reference configures a logical unit within a
storage device (Br. 12). According to Appellants, the claimed logical
volume contains multiple physical devices which are replaced in case of
failure (id.). Appellants assert that Golasky “does not replace a physical
entity (a primary storage device) with another physical entity (unassigned
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013