Appeal 2007-0643
Application 10/015,825
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that a complete file system tree
would consist of a particular number (e.g., 1,000) of data files that are
candidate data files (i.e., subject to scanning and possible migration). The
artisan would further appreciate that, in the case that an entire file system
tree is to be scanned and no new files are added to, or deleted from, the file
system during the scanning, the scope of the scan is pre-determined by the
number (e.g., 1,000) of candidate files. The managed file system would be
scanned until no more files are left to scan -- i.e., upon having scanned the
entire tree and reaching the prespecified number (1,000) of migration
candidate files.
The invention of claim 1 is set forth in such broad terms that the claim
is not only anticipated by Cabrera, but also embraces Appellants’ description
of the prior art in the Specification. “A reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and
be in possession of the invention.’” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36
USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929,
936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962)).
We thus consider Appellants’ argument in support of why the finding
of anticipation over Cabrera is in error to be untenable. Even if one were to
assume, as Appellants allege, that Cabrera teaches searching an entire file
system for candidate files, instant claim 1 does not set forth or require the
relied-upon distinction.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013