Appeal 2007-0965
Application 10/264,573
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-6, but does not support the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-22.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
CLAIMS 1-6
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1-6
as being anticipated by Burkes. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to
this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for
this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Burkes does not disclose measuring a utilization
rate, as that term is commonly understood. Appellants assert that the term
“utilization rate” is understood as the ratio of two quantities: (1) the
measured usage of something divided by (2), the maximum possible usage
of that same thing. Appellants assert that Burkes merely discloses
measuring how often the data is accessed without comparison to any
maximum possible “oftenness” of accessing the data. Appellants further
argue that Burkes fails to disclose measuring a utilization rate at which the
array is accessed using the controller (Br. 5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013