Ex Parte Rustagi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201311101734 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VIRESH RUSTAGI, CHRISTOPHER S. WILSON, and KENNETH MA ____________ Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 18, and 30-44, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See App. Br. 2.1 Claims 5, 14, 16, and 17 are cancelled. See id. Claims 19-29 are withdrawn. See id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 28, 2009 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 15, 2010 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 15, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to providing graphical user interfaces for managing data storage drives or hard disk drives. See Spec. ¶ 07. Claim 7, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 7. A method of modifying the size of a data pool comprising: receiving one or more inputs using a graphical user interface, said graphical user interface comprising: a first input field for receiving a data pool name of said data pool; a plurality of second input fields for receiving the disk space contribution of each of a plurality of data storage drives, said plurality of data storage drives resident within a single data storage device, said contribution used for generating said data pool; and resizing said data pool based on said one or more inputs received at said first input field and said second input fields. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Shoroff US 5,742,818 Apr. 21, 1998 Kim US 2003/0023811 A1 Jan. 20, 2003 Lagueux US 6,538,669 B1 Mar. 25, 2003 Carlson US 7,133,907 B2 Nov. 7, 2006 (filed Oct. 18, 2001) UsingW2k Using Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Special ed., Feb. 24, 2000 Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 3 Claims 1-42, 6-13, 15, 18, 34, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lagueux and UsingW2k. See Ans. 3-8. For claim 15, the Examiner cites Shoroff in support of a taking of official notice. See Ans. 7. For claim 44, the Examiner cites Kim as an “evidentiary reference.” Ans. 8. Claims 30-33 and 35-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson. See Ans. 9. ISSUES For the independent claims, Appellants present most of their arguments in conjunction with independent claim 7. See App. Br. 10-28. Appellants only nominally argue independent claims 1 and 10 separately. See App. Br. 28-31. Regarding claim 7, the issues are whether Lagueux and UsingW2k teach or suggest: 1. “a first input field for receiving a data pool name of said data pool.” See App. Br. 13-17; 2. “a plurality of second input fields for receiving the disk space contribution.” See App. Br. 17-19; 3. a “plurality of data storage drives resident within a single data storage device.” See App. Br. 20-22; and 4. “resizing said data pool based on said one or more inputs received at said first input field and said second input fields.” See App. Br. 22-25. 2 The statement of the rejection in the Answer, at 3, does not list claims 2-4, 6, or 9. However, bases for rejecting each of these claims are discussed in the Answer, at 6. Accordingly, we treat claims 2-4, 6, and 9 as rejected. Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 4 Regarding independent claims 15 and 18, Appellants contend that the limitations that substantially overlap with those of claim 7 are not taught in Lagueux and UsingW2k for the reasons presented for claim 7. See App. Br. 32-33, 38, 41. The additional issues for claim 15 are whether Lagueux and UsingW2k, in light of the Examiner’s official notice as evidenced by Shoroff, teach or suggest: 5. “one or more data pool information blocks positioned at the beginning of each of said one or more partitions.” See App. Br. 33-38; and 6. a “data pool comprising one or more partitions, said one or more partitions concatenated using one or more data pool information blocks that identify said partitions . . . .” See App. Br. 39-40. The additional issue for claim 18 is whether Lagueux and UsingW2k, in light of the Examiner’s official notice as evidenced by Shoroff, teach or suggest: 7. “modifying the size of a data pool based on said one or more data storage capacity values, said data storage device comprising said two or more data storage drives.” See App. Br. 42. Claim 43 depends on claim 15. The issue regarding claim 43 is whether Lagueux and UsingW2k teach or suggest: 8. “wherein each of said one or more partitions comprises a first pool information block and a second pool information block, said first pool information block being a mirror image of said second pool information block.” See App. Br. 44-50. Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 5 Claim 44 depends on claim 43. The issue regarding claim 44 is whether Lagueux and UsingW2k, informed by Kim, teach or suggest: 9. “wherein each of said first pool information block and said second pool information block comprises a field that is used to specify a name of said data pool.” See App. Br. 50-51. Claim 30 depends on claim 18. Claims 31-33 depend on claim 30. Claim 35 depends on claim 10. Claims 36-39 depend on claim 35. Claims 40-42 depend on claim 15. 10. Regarding claim 30, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest “dragging a border of at least one of said one or more visual indicators to a desired size.” See App. Br. 51-52. 11. Regarding claim 35, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest “said selector repositionable by using a mouse, said one or more visual indicators used for adjusting storage capacity by way of pointing a cursor of said mouse over one of said one or more visual indicators and dragging a border of said one of said one or more visual indicators to a desired size.” See App. Br. 55-56. 12. Regarding claim 36, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest “a control for moving said selector by way of clicking said control using said mouse.” See App. Br. 57. 13. Regarding claims 31, 37, and 40, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest that “said numerical value” or “drive space contribution” corresponds to or Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 6 represents “unused disk space.” See App. Br. 52-53, 57-58, 60- 61. 14. Regarding claims 32, 38, and 41, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest that “said numerical value” or “drive space contribution” corresponds to or represents “JBOD disk space.” See App. Br. 53-54, 59-60, 62- 63. 15. Regarding claims 33, 39, and 42, the issue is whether Lagueux, UsingW2k, and Carlson teach or suggest that “said numerical value” or “drive space contribution” corresponds to or represents “RAID disk space.” See App. Br. 54-55, 60-61, 63- 65. ANALYSIS In response to the Examiner’s rejections, Appellants present over twenty3 allegations of error, essentially arguing that the Examiner has erred in fact finding as to nearly every element of every claim. In most of these instances, Appellants do little more than point to claim language and, in conclusory fashion, argue that it is not taught by the prior art. This is insufficient to raise separate grounds of error. Rather, the Federal Circuit has held that “the Board reasonably interpreted [37 C.F.R. § 41.37] to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements 3 By the Examiner’s count, Appellants have presented 24 separate allegations of error, although the Examiner has in some instances grouped allegations, so the number is actually higher. Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 7 were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellants’ approach is also unpersuasive, as we explain below. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-4, 6-13, 15, 18, 34, 43, AND 44 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 1-4, 6-13, 18, and 34 Regarding claim 7, the Examiner finds that Lagueux teaches a graphical user interface (Lagueux, Figs. 24, 26) that includes a first input field for receiving a data pool name of a data pool (the “LUN Name” field 1601 of Figs. 24 and 26) and a plurality of second input fields for receiving a disk space contribution (the “Virtual Circuit” pop-up menus 1605, 1606, of Figs. 24 and 26). See Ans. 3-4. The Examiner also finds that Lagueux discloses resizing the data pool based on the inputs received at the first input field and the second input fields. See Ans. 4; see also Ans. 15 (“the figures of Lagueux show dialog boxes that accept user input, and based on that input, a data pool is sized or resized -for example from zero to 100Gb”). The Examiner finds that UsingW2k also discloses a first input field and resizing the data pool, pointing to Figure 33.4 of UsingW2k (which shows a field for inputting a volume or partition name) and Figures 33.6 and 33.7 (which show the selection of disks and corresponding disk volumes). See Ans. 5; see also Ans. 12, 15. The Examiner finds that, while Lagueux does not explicitly disclose that the second input fields receive the disk space contribution of each of a plurality of data storage drives, UsingW2k does. See Ans. 5 (citing UsingW2k, Figs. 33.6, 33.7; pp. 5-7). Specifically, the Examiner points to UsingW2k’s description of creating a spanned or striped volume. See id. According to the Examiner, UsingW2k teaches multiple disk drives resident Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 8 within a PC, and thus teaches a plurality of data storage drives resident within a single data storage device (the PC). See id. Regarding the “first input field” recited in claim 7, Appellants merely argue that neither Lagueux nor UsingW2k teaches this limitation, without explaining why. See App. Br. 13 (“a field for inputting a logical unit number [taught in Lagueux] does not teach ‘a first input field for receiving a data pool name of said data pool’”); 14 (“While Figure 33.4 of UsingW2k illustrates assigning a partition or volume to a folder, Figure 33.4 does not teach ‘a first input field for receiving a data pool name of said data pool’”); 15 (repeating the arguments of page 14); 16 (“Appellants do not see how ‘name and description input fields’ of a dialog box for mapping a new LUN (logical unit number) map entry (as illustrated in Figures 24 and 26 of Lagueux) could even remotely teach anything about ‘a first input field for receiving a data pool name of said data pool . . . .’” (emphasis Appellants’)); see also App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 5-7 (repeating the arguments of the App. Br. 13-16, 26). According to the Examiner, a “data pool name” is broad enough to encompass a “LUN name,” a “volume name,” or a “partition name.” See Ans. 12. Appellants do not provide any persuasive reason why the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad. Although Appellants argue that “a name of a LUN (logical unit number) does not teach a name of a data pool,” App. Br. 16, they do not adequately explain why not. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. In a similar fashion, Appellants contend that the prior art does not teach claim 7’s “plurality of second input fields” without explaining why not, instead repeatedly asserting that Lagueux and UsingW2k “do[] not teach anything about” this limitation. App. Br. 17-18. Referring to Lagueux’s Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 9 “Storage” button (item 1606) of Figure 24, Appellants argue, again in conclusory fashion, that “a storage button does not teach a field.” App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 10. Appellants’ own Specification directly refutes this argument, explaining that a “field” includes a menu very much like the pop-up menu described in Lagueux. See Spec. 12:-13 (“The GUI may provide a ‘pull-down’ field in which a user may select one of several different selections associated with the one or more parameters.”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings as to this limitation. Regarding claim 7’s “plurality of data storage drives resident within a single data storage device,” Appellants argue that, although UsingW2k describes more than one storage drive, it does not explicitly teach that those drives are resident within one computer. See App. Br. 19-21. In response, the Examiner finds that UsingW2k’s disclosure of assigning logical drive letters to “hard disks and removable drives such as CD-ROMs” (both stated in the plural), teaches a plurality of drives resident within a computer. See Ans. 14. In reply, Appellants argue that this disclosure might mean that the multiple devices are “scattered within a network,” rather than in one computer. Reply Br. 12. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. While UsingW2k, at p. 2, discloses a “single interface [that] lets you manage both local and remote computers,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding that one possibility clearly contemplated by UsingW2k, indeed the most reasonable inference, is multiple drives within a single computer, see Ans. 5. Appellants also argue that a computer is not a “storage device,” as it “is used by way of the Windows interface to display, maintain, and configure storage devices.” App. Br. 21-22. Appellants draw from UsingW2k’s teaching that a Windows interface may be used “to maintain Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 10 and configure your storage devices,” the inference that storage devices and computers are different. Id. Appellants do not adequately explain why the choice of UsingW2k’s author to term a disk drive a “storage device” limits the meaning of that term in Appellants’ claim 7 to exclude PCs. In their Reply, Appellants further argue that their Specification describes a “network attached storage device (NAS),” which has “a number of components which differentiates it from a typical computer or PC described by UsingWin2k [sic.].” Reply Br. 12-13. Appellants do not adequately explain why the term “storage device” recited in claim 7 should be limited to the NAS described in the Specification as a “representative embodiment,” or should otherwise be interpreted to exclude a PC. We agree with the Examiner that a “storage device,” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, includes “any device capable of storage,” Ans. 14-15, which would encompass a PC. Appellants contend that Lagueux and UsingWin2k do not teach or suggest “resizing said data pool based on said one or more inputs received at said first input field and said second input fields,” as recited in claim 7. See App. Br. 22-25. The Examiner finds that Lagueux, for example, shows a data pool resized from zero to 100Gb. See Ans. 15. Appellants repeatedly argue that the Examiner’s citations (Lagueux, Figs. 24 and 26; UsingWin2K, Figs. 33.6 and 33.7 and accompanying text) do not have “anything to do with” or “teach[] anything about” this limitation, and further argue that the Examiner has “improperly characterized what is actually disclosed” in the references. Id. However, Appellants do not explain why the Examiner’s citations fail to teach the recited limitation or how the citations properly should be characterized. See id. Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s finding that the “creation of new volumes or new data pools” Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 11 teaches “resizing” of a data pool “improperly characterize[s] what is actually disclosed in the cited reference.” App. Br. 25 (emphasis Appellants’). Again, Appellants do not explain what the proper characterization is. Accordingly, Appellants have not adequately explained why the Examiner’s findings are erroneous. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not articulated a reason to combine Lagueux and UsingW2k because the passages cited by the Examiner “do not even deal with a plurality of data storage drives in a single data storage device.” App. Br. 26. Because we find that Lagueux and UsingW2k at least suggest a plurality of data storage drives in a single storage device, we find this argument unpersuasive. Appellants contend that the Examiner, by choosing to rely on the analysis for claim 7, has not “explicitly shown a teaching” of claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 28-31. Appellants then list the claim elements from claims 1 and 10 they contend not to be taught in Lagueux and UsingW2k, without providing substantive arguments as to why they are not taught. See id. In fact, the Examiner did explicitly show teachings of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, albeit in conjunction with showing teachings of substantially the same limitations in claim 7. See Ans. 3-5. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions for claims 1 and 10 for the same reasons as claim 7, detailed above. Regarding independent claim 18, Appellants contend that Figures 33.6 and 33.7 of UsingW2k do not teach “modifying the size of a data pool based on said one or more data storage capacity values, said data storage device comprising said two or more data storage drives.” See App. Br. 42-44. Here, Appellants make substantially the same arguments presented for claim Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 12 7, the limitation “resizing said data pool based on said one or more inputs received at said first input field and said second input fields.” Compare App. Br. 42-44 to App. Br. 22-26. We find Appellants’ arguments for claim 18 unpersuasive for the reasons given above for claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claim 7; (2) claims 1, 10, and 18, which include recitations substantially the same as claim 7; (3) claims 2, 3, 4, and 6, which depend on claim 1; (4) claims 8 and 9, which depend on claim 7; and (5) claims 11-13 and 34, which depend on claim 10. Claim 15 Independent claim 15 overlaps substantially with claim 7. The Examiner finds that the overlapping limitations are taught in Lagueux and UsingW2k for the same reasons as found for claim 7. See Ans. 7. Regarding the limitation “said data pool comprising one or more partitions, said one or more partitions concatenated using one or more data pool information blocks that identify said partitions, said one or more data pool information blocks positioned at the beginning of each of said one or more partitions,” the Examiner finds that it is suggested, but not explicitly taught, by Lagueux and UsingW2k. See id. Citing Shoroff, the Examiner takes official notice that partition headers were well-known and that implementing partition headers at the beginning of each partition would have had “the advantage of facilitating the maintenance of partition data (metadata) during concatenation of logical storage pools.” Id. Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the prior art teaches “said one or more data pool information blocks positioned at the beginning Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 13 of each of said one or more partitions,” arguing that Shoroff “does not disclose anything about” the maintenance of partition data during concatenation of logical storage pools, and instead teaches the maintenance of File Allocation Table (“FAT”) partition data used to convert a hard disk from a FAT file system to an Offline File System (“OFS”) file system. See App. Br. 34-35. Appellants argue that a system that converts data from a source file system to a target file system is different from the graphical user interface of Lagueux, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not have considered Shoroff’s teaching together with Lagueux’s. See App. Br. 35. In response, the Examiner notes that Shoroff is cited to show that “partition headers are notoriously well known to ordinarily-skilled artisans familiar with file systems which make use of partitions such as the ubiquitous Microsoft Windows, as an example.” Ans. 17-18. According to the Examiner, “[t]he fact that Lagueux, UsingW2k and Shoroff are not directed to the same exact invention does not disqualify Shoroff from being used with the other two references since all references pertain to using a file system and/or operating system [to] effect changes in a computing environment.” Ans. 18. This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive that “[c]ommon sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Thus, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417; accord In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 14 bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (citations omitted)). Aside from pointing out that there are differences between the technologies of Lagueux and Shoroff, Appellants provide no explanation as to why the Examiner erred in finding that partition headers were well-known. Appellants also contend that UsingW2k does not teach claim 15’s “one or more partitions concatenated using one or more data pool information blocks that identify said partitions,” and that Shoroff does not cure the deficiency. See App. Br. 39. The Examiner finds that the spanned volumes taught in UsingW2k “are essentially partitions concatenated together.” Ans. 7. Appellants acknowledge that UsingW2k teaches volumes that span multiple partitions, but argue that this does not teach the recited limitation. See App. Br. 39. However, Appellants do not adequately explain why UsingW2k’s disclosure is deficient. See id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that UsingW2k’s disclosure of spanned volumes teaches “one or more partitions concatenated using one or more data pool information blocks that identify said partitions.” Accordingly, we need not reach Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 22, 24-28) that Shoroff fails to teach this limitation. Appellants also “respectfully disagree” that claim 15 is otherwise substantially similar in claim scope to claim 7. App. Br. 37. However, Appellants do not point out any additional errors in the Examiner’s findings. See id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 15 Claims 43 and 44 Claim 43 depends on claim 15 and adds “wherein each of said one or more partitions comprises a first pool information block and a second pool information block, said first pool information block being a mirror image of said second pool information block.” Claim 44 depends on claim 43 and adds “wherein each of said first pool information block and said second pool information block comprises a field that is used to specify a name of said data pool.” Regarding claim 43, the Examiner finds that UsingW2k (at pages 4-8) teaches the use of special partitions or information blocks within each partition that are redundantly created in order to assist with failover operations, and that Lagueux teaches mirrored block storage. See Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that Kim (cited as an “evidentiary reference”) teaches the additional limitation of claim 44. Id. Regarding claim 43, Appellants contend that UsingW2k does not disclose “special blocks” or “failover operations,” and accuses the Examiner of improperly characterizing UsingW2k. App. Br. 45. In response, the Examiner points to UsingW2k’s “RAID and Dynamic Disk Information Storage” disclosure at page 8, which teaches a “hidden partition at the end of the disk drive” that “tells Windows that the disk is a member of a fault- tolerant disk set.” See Ans. 20. In Reply, Appellants argue that this hidden partition is located at the end of the disk drive, and thus does not meet claim 15’s requirement that the data pool information blocks be “positioned at the beginning of each of said one or more partitions.” See Reply Br. 31. However, as we explained above, we agree with the Examiner’s taking of official notice that partition headers (which are at the beginning of Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 16 partitions) were well-known. See Ans. 17-18. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Appellants also argue that Lagueux’s disclosure of a “block storage interface to provide support for mirrored data storage” does not disclose “wherein each of said first pool information block and said second pool information block comprises a field that is used to specify a name of said data pool.” App. Br. 45-46. Appellants point out that the “first pool information block” and “second pool information block” are the blocks recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 46. As explained above, we agree with the Examiner that the prior art teaches the pool information blocks of claim 15. See Ans. 7. Thus, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Appellants further argue, at App. Br. 46-50, that Kim does not teach the additional limitation of claim 43. However, the Examiner is not citing Kim for this limitation. See Ans. 8. Thus, we need not address whether Kim also teaches this limitation. Regarding claim 44, Appellants argue that Kim’s metadata is not “used to ‘identify’ one or more partitions” and that the metadata is not “used to concatenate the one or more partitions,” as recited in claim 15 (on which claim 44 ultimately depends). See App. Br. 48. However, Appellants do not adequately explain why Kim fails to disclose this. See id. Moreover, as explained above, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that UsingW2k and Lagueux, in light of the Examiner’s taking of official notice, teach or suggest claim 15. See Ans. 7. Appellants further argue that Kim does not disclose a “field that is used to specify a name of said data pool.” App. Br. 50. However, Appellants do not adequately explain why the Examiner’s finding to the contrary is wrong. See id. The Examiner finds that a “volumes metadata [as taught in Kim] is understood to include identification Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 17 information as is well known in the art.” Ans. 21. In reply, Appellants “submit that a logical volume does not teach a pool information block since the pool information block is found within each partition.” Reply Br. 36. However, Kim teaches that its metadata table is “stored in each disk partition.” Kim, ¶ 0083; see also id. at ¶ 0085 (“a metadata for whole volume is duplicated and stored each disk partitions.”). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 43 and 44. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 30-33, AND 35-42 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 30 and 35 recite “dragging a border” of a “visual indicator” to a desired size, the visual indicator being associated with a “numerical value.” Claim 35 recites that the dragging is done using a mouse. Claim 36 depends on claim 35 and further recites “a control for moving said selector by way of clicking said control using said mouse.” The Examiner finds these limitations disclosed in Carlson, which depicts a graphical user interface including a “slider” for selecting a memory storage capacity. See Ans. 9 (citing Carlson, Fig. 8). The Examiner further notes that the features recited in claims 30 and 35 are examples of “some of the most common graphical object manipulations (known in the art since at least windows 95) being resizing visual objects by dragging, moving objects by dragging and dropping, and toggling objects from different states by clicking on them.” Ans. 9-10. Without elaboration, Appellants argue that Carlson does not teach these limitations. See App. Br. 51-52, 55-57; Reply Br. 37. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 18 Claims 31, 37, and 40 recite that the “numerical value” of claims 30 and 35 or the “drive space contribution” of claim 15 corresponds to or represents “unused disk space.” Claims 32, 38, and 41 recite that the numerical value or drive space contribution corresponds to or represents “JBOD space.” Claims 33, 39, and 42 recite that the numerical value or drive space contribution corresponds to or represents “RAID disk space.” The Examiner finds each of these disclosed in Carlson, at Figure 8 and column 1, lines 41-53. See Ans. 10. Appellants contest each of these limitations, arguing little more than Carlson “does not specify whether the numerical value” meets the criteria. See App. Br. 57-65. Appellants do not adequately explain why the Examiner erred in finding to the contrary. See id. Moreover, we note that Carlson discusses using “a storage device configuration tool to resize a logical volume, such as a logical unit number (LUN), or change the logical volume configuration at the storage device, e.g., the RAID or JBOD, to provide more or less storage space to the host.” Carlson, col. 1, ll. 48-52. See also Ans. 10. Appellants do not address that finding of the Examiner. Regarding the “unused disk space” recited in claims 31, 37, and 40, the Examiner responds that it “is readily apparent to anyone in possession of an ordinary level of skill in the art that this is precisely what the numerical value corresponds to - since if the space were used, it would not be available for allocation and would defeat the entire purpose of the allocation sequence.” Ans. 22-23. In reply, Appellants argue, without citation, that instead of unused storage space, Carlson’s remaining space, shown in Figure 8, might instead be allocated for other servers or network computers. See Reply Br. 39-40. We agree with the Examiner. Carlson at least suggests the Appeal 2010-008526 Application 11/101,734 19 numerical value shown in Figure 8 corresponds to unused disk space. See Ans. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30-33 and 35-42. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 18, and 30-44 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation