Appeal 2007-0426
Application 10/145,307
storage device)” and instead, “replaces a logical unit, which resides on a
physical device, but is not itself a physical device” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that Golasky’s logical units within
storage device 14 are physical devices (FF 6-9). The logical units
correspond to the actual non-volatile physical storage devices within storage
device 14 which may be grouped into logical units. In that regard, the
collection of physical storage devices within storage device 14 forms the
logical units which may be replaced in case of failure with an unassigned
unit.
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ assertion (Br.13), combining
Golasky with Dunphy does not involve different management techniques
necessary for physical and logical entities. In fact, since both require
assigning physical devices as the replacement for a failed device, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references to benefit from
the recovery system of Golasky automatically assigning unassigned devices
in order to reduce the need for additional storage devices and increase the
speed of the system.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Because Appellants have failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s
position, we sustain the § 103 rejection with respect to claim 1 and also with
respect to claims 3-9, 11-17, and 19-22, which are argued either together
with claim 1 or merely based on the same reasons discussed in relation with
claim 1 (Br. 9-13). Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-22 over Dunphy and Golasky.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013