Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
dependent defect as independent claim 5 on appeal. However,
we note that there is no recitation of any retry let alone a
plurality of retry operations in this claim. Therefore, the
subject matter of this claim is more easily met by the above-
noted teachings of the reference as we outlined earlier.
Contrary to appellants’ apparent assertions in the brief, we
do not construe the degraded performance mode of operations to
require an interpretation that any fault tolerance or error
recovery is necessarily mandated by that language. This view
is consistent with our affirmance of the feature recited in
claim 12 because all that recited feature of degradation of
performance in claim 11 means is simply that it is performed
at a reduced clock speed, which feature we have clearly
indicated before is contained within Missios.
We sustain the rejection of claim 12 further in view of
the admitted prior art by appellants in the paragraph bridging
pages 2 and 3 of the disclosed invention as it relates to
redundant processing elements. It clearly would have been
obvious to the artisan to have applied the teachings of
Missios to a system embodying more than one “processing
element.” The rejection of dependent claim 13 is sustained
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007