Appeal 2007-1951
Application 10/120,016
write, causing a pointer of the virtual storage area to point to the section of
the at least one other storage area, and writing the new data to the section of
the stored data.” Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that before a write is
made to a section of a stored data, the data currently in the section is copied
to another section, and then the new write is made to the section (i.e. the data
in the section is overwritten). Claim 1 also recites that there are pointers
which point to the another section. Independent claims 14 and 26 recite
limitations which include similar operations.
As discussed above Hitz teaches a method to maintain a consistent
state of a file system. (Fact 1). As the Examiner identifies, one of the
problems in the prior art, which creates a clone (complete duplicate) of the
data on the file system is that it uses of a lot of storage space. (Col. 4, ll. 21-
33). However, we find that one of the principle purposes of Hitz is to
maintain a consistent state of the data, which is in part accomplished by
never overwriting data. (Fact 6). While copying existing data to an unused
section of a disk and then writing data to the section of the existing data,
such as taught by Siddha, may create a snapshot similar to that taught by
Hitz, this method of making a snapshot involves overwriting data. Hitz, in
numerous instances states that overwriting data is avoided. We consider that
given Hitz’s teachings one skilled in the art would be lead away from
modifying Hitz to overwrite data. We find no teaching in Siddha that would
suggest to the skilled artisan that Hitz’s teaching of not overwriting data
should be ignored. Thus, we do not find that modifying Hitz’s method to
permit overwriting data would have been an obvious modification.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 14, and 26.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013