Appeal No. 95-3648
Application 07/777,844
the SAS would have taken over the operation from a failed PAS.
As we see it, the reasoning of the examiner would have effec-
tively operated against the fault tolerant, fault detection and
recovery operations as a primary aim of the disclosed invention
in Smith. Moreover, Smith’s basic teaching is that each module
is, in fact, two identical copies of the same code distributed
between separate processors for each operational unit. As such,
we view the artisans’ perspective of the teachings of Smith as
Smith not suggesting a check for a newer version of the firmware
between the PAS and the SAS.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting independent claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed. As such, the rejection of the respective dependent
claims must also be reversed. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007