Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
systems (Fig. 2). In particular, we note the claim language merely requires “at least
one of a storage system ….” (Independent claims 29, 39, 50, 53, and 56, emphasis
added). We agree with the Examiner that Roberts’ multiple source and target
computer systems inherently (i.e., necessarily) include at least some memory
storage (i.e., a “storage system”) as required for the operation of any computer
(Roberts, Fig. 2, col. 6, ll. 47-48).
We note that the patentability of each of independent claims 29, 39, 50, 53,
and 56 turns upon our findings regarding both Issues 1 and 2. Because we find the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position on Issues 1 and 2,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 29, 39, 50, 53, and
56 as being anticipated by Roberts.
Analysis of Issue 3
Appellant argues Roberts fails to teach a controller for determining at least
one performance related function, as recited in claim 22 (Br. 22).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds Roberts discloses a
policing scheduler 540 (col. 15, ll. 50-55) and QoS scheduler (col. 16, ll. 15-20)
that determine at least one performance related function (Answer 26).
We agree with the Examiner that the language of the claim broadly but
reasonably reads on Roberts’ disclosure of “policing scheduler 540” and “QoS
scheduler 525” that determine at least one performance related function (i.e.,
controlling scheduling constraints and/or Quality of Service) (Fig. 5, col. 12, ll.
3-20, col. 15, ll. 50-55, col. 16, ll. 15-20). In particular, we note both of these
components are integral to “linecard 410” of “switch 220” that we find is a
network micro-flow controller (Fig. 5). Furthermore, component “policing
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013