Appeal 2007-1779
Application 10/447,351
“One cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among
isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention.”
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In an obviousness rejection, it is impermissible “to pick and choose
from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position,
to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau,
353 F.2d 238, 241, 147 USPQ 391, 393 (CCPA 1965).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner contends that Pittelkow teaches “suspending said I/O
request by said one client storage controller (column 30, lines 38-39)”
(Answer 4). The referenced portion of Pittelkow merely states that “[t]he
slave controller functions as a storage controller to service I/O requests to
connected disks and servers.” Accordingly, we agree with the Appellants’
argument that the claimed “suspending said I/O request” step is not taught
by Pittelkow (Br. 5). Neither Franklin nor Jiang teaches such a
“suspending” step in their respective operations.
With respect to the claimed step of determining “whether or not said
region of storage has already been copied,” we find that the determination in
Franklin of whether or not a block of data has been modified is not the same
as a determination of whether or not a region of storage has been copied.
Jiang describes several types of locking operations, but not in
response to “a determination that said region of storage has not been copied”
as set forth in the claims on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013