Appeal 2007-1779
Application 10/447,351
blocks of data in the smaller backing store container 212 with original
blocks of data in the larger read-write container 210” (col. 5, ll. 7 to 11).
When a user issues an input I/O request to the file system 110, the file
system translates the request into an I/O request bound for a read-write
container 210 in I/O subsystem 112 (col. 5, l. 65 to col. 6, l. 3). A container
manager 201 in the I/O subsystem 112 checks to see if the I/O request is a
read request or a write request (col. 6, ll. 3 to 7). If it is a write request, the
container manager 201 checks a modified-bit-map table 214 to determine if
the read-write on-line block where a file is stored has been modified (col. 6,
ll. 7 to 11). If the block has been modified, then the I/O request is forwarded
to read-write container driver 210 (col. 6, ll. 11 to 13). If the block has not
been modified, then the container manager 201 copies the unmodified block
from the read-write container 210 to the backing store container 212 (col. 6,
ll. 14 to 17).
Jiang describes “request lock to owner controller for metadata and
release lock after commit (Figures 20-21, column 30, lines 41-67, column
31, lines 1-15)” (Answer 5).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must
possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013