Appeal 2007-2449
Application 09/927,894
discloses increasing throughput with additional network interfaces, but not
redundancy. Therefore, we will not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 18.
Appellants (Br. 8-9) set forth substantially the same contentions for
claim 19 as for claim 1. As we explained supra, Wang (col. 6, ll. 22-32)
discloses allowing multiple block read/write operations to occur in parallel.
Although Wang does not explicitly state that the read/write operations occur
over multiple concurrent sockets, it is unclear how multiple operations
would occur in parallel between a host and a disk without using concurrent
logical connections. When the Examiner directed Appellants' attention to
this portion of Wang, the burden shifted to Appellants to explain how the
claim limitation differs from Wang. Since the Examiner referenced column
6 of Wang in the Answer at page 16, and Appellants in the Reply Brief
failed to distinguish claim 19 over the cited portion, we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 19 over Wang. In addition, since claims 20,
21, 23, 26, 27, and 56, all dependent upon claim 19, were not separately
argued, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of them as well. Also,
since the argument provided for claim 55 is substantially the same as for
claim 19, which we found unpersuasive supra, we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 55.
Appellants (Br. 9-10) provide the same arguments for claims 22 and
24 as for claims 5 and 7, discussed supra. As we found Appellants'
arguments persuasive, we will not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims
22 and 24, nor of claim 25 which depends from claim 24.
Appellants contend (Br. 10-11) that Wang fails to disclose
"maintaining the first and second TCP/IP connections in a persistent state
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013