Appeal 2007-1978
Application 10/185,702
contiguous physical storage locations. Therefore, we find that Matsunami’s
disclosure of contiguous logical blocks of data in a storage device teaches
the contiguous sectors of the storage system, as recited in claims 1, 4, 11, 14,
21, 24, 31, and 34.
It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent
claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, 24, 31, and 34 as being anticipated by Matsunami.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
We now turn to the rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, 27,
36, and 37 as being unpatentable over Matsunami, taken in combination with
Cesar and Bennett under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We note that the cited claims
recite storing a read request in an indexed table when the request is
transmitted. We find that the combination of Matsunami, Cesar, and
Bennett does not reasonably teach this limitation.
We find that Matsunami is limited to issuing read requests to the
switch without actually storing such requests in an indexed table. We
further find that Cesar and Bennett do not remedy this deficiency.
Particularly, we find that Bennett teaches storing transmitted messages in a
queue. (Finding 8.) We thus agree with Appellants that Bennett’s messages
are different from the claimed read or access requests. We further agree
with Appellants that since Bennett’s messages are queued, as opposed to
being indexed in tables, Bennett cannot cure Matsunami’s deficiencies. It
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013