Appeal 2007-1978
Application 10/185,702
D. Claims 8 through 10, 18 through 20, 28 through 30, and 38 through 40
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Matsunami and Wu.
First, Appellants contend2 that Matsunami does not anticipate the
invention as recited claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34. Particularly,
Appellants contend that Matsunami teaches neither reading and accessing a
piece of data in memory through one read request when the data is stored in
contiguous memory sectors nor reading and accessing the data in multiple
read requests when the data is stored in non-contiguous sectors. (App. Br. 4-
6.) In response, the Examiner contends that Matsunami’s disclosure of a
command description block (CDB) including command bytes to access a
disk array, a transfer start logic address (LEA) and a transfer length (LEN),
teaches the claim limitation. (Answer 10-11.)
Second, Appellants contend that the combination of Matsunami, Cesar
and Bennett does not render dependent claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, 27, 36, and
37 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Particularly, Appellants argue that
the cited combination does not teach storing a read request in an indexed
table when the request is transmitted, as recited in the cited claims. (App.
Br. 7 and 8.) In response, the Examiner contends that Bennett’s disclosure
2 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal Brief. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013