Appeal 2007-2449
Application 09/927,894
logical connection. Therefore, we will not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 5.
Appellants contend (Br. 8) that Wang fails to disclose multiple
partitions, each allocated to a different host computer, as recited in claim 7.
The Examiner (Answer 5 and 14) asserts that Wang discloses the noted
limitation in column 5, lines 5-24, and column 10, line 66-column 11, line
29, respectively. However, although Wang does disclose partitioning the
storage device, we find nothing that teaches allocating each partition to a
different host computer. Accordingly, we will not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 7.
Appellants (Br. 8) contend that in rejecting claim 15, the Examiner
"merely points to Figure 6 of Wang, without making any attempt to explain
how the drawing discloses the limitations at issue." However, the Examiner
(Answer 14) responds by referring to Wang (col. 33, ll. 24-38), wherein
Wang discloses increasing throughput by adding additional network
interface controllers. The burden shifted to Appellants to explain how the
above-noted portion differs from the limitation of claim 15. Appellants
failed to distinguish this portion of Wang from claim 15 in the Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 15.
The Examiner relies upon Wang, column 10, line 66-column 11, line
10 (Answer 7) and column 33, lines 24-38 (Answer 14) for a second
network interface in rejecting claim 18. Appellants contend (Br. 8 and
Reply Br. 4) that neither portion of Wang teaches a second network interface
that provides "redundant network connections between the host computer
and the storage server." We agree that Wang fails to teach that the
additional network interfaces provide redundancy. Wang (col. 22, ll. 24-38)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013