Appeal 2007-1779
Application 10/447,351
in response to an I/O request to one of said client storage controllers,
suspending said I/O request by said one client storage controller;
determining, by said owner storage controller, whether or not said
region of storage has already been copied;
in a determination that said region of storage has been copied,
unpending said I/O request by said one client storage controller to process
said I/O request; and
in a determination that said region of storage has not been copied,
placing a lock record against said metadata associated with said
region of storage;
copying data within said region of storage by said owner
storage controller; and
releasing said lock record to process said I/O request.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Franklin US 6,061,770 May 9, 2000
Jiang US 6,453,354 B1 Sept. 17, 2002
Pittelkow US 7,003,688 B1 Feb. 21, 2006
(filed Jun. 28, 2002)
The Examiner rejected claims 5 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Pittelkow, Franklin, and Jiang.
Appellants contend that the applied references, whether considered
separately or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the features of
the claimed invention (Br. 6 and 7). Appellants additionally contend that the
Examiner has used impermissible hindsight to pick and choose among
disclosures in the prior art to make the obviousness rejection (Reply Br. 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013