Appeal 2007-0965
Application 10/264,573
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
After carefully considering all the evidence before us, we find that
Burkes’ teaching of attempting to convert an unused RAID area (i.e., a free
area) to a mirror RAID area without violating a system threshold of unused
RAID-level storage does not meet the language of the claims that requires
“wherein the free space is not created if the utilization rate is greater than or
equal to the threshold utilization rate …” (see Burkes col. 9, ll. 35-40; see
also instant claims 7 and 12, emphasis added). Nor do we find this gap to be
filled by Burkes’ affirmative teaching of “creating unused [i.e., free] RAID
areas during idle time” (col. 10, l. 1).
We find the Examiner has interpreted Burkes’ “idle time” as a time of
no access that corresponds to the instant claimed “threshold utilization rate”
(See Answer 14, ¶ 2, ll. 7-11). Thus, we find that Burkes teaches creating
unused RAID areas (i.e., creating free space) when the utilization rate equals
the threshold utilization rate of zero access (i.e., during idle time) (see
Burkes, col. 10, l.1). Therefore, we find Burkes does not teach or suggest
the recited negative limitation that requires not creating free space if the
utilization rate is greater than or equal to the threshold utilization rate (see
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013