Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
for the same but amplified reasons since the feature of
continuing the processing of a remainder of functional units
when one has been determined to have an error is met by the
capability expressed in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3
of the disclosure as to features known in the art. When one
processing element is determined to have an error in the prior
art, the remaining processing elements are continued or
allowed to continue processing a stream of instructions while
the one with the error is taken “off-line.” Because the
remaining active elements are stated to continue processing
the instruction stream, the same performance level appears to
have been met by the prior art approach as set forth in the
last lines of claim 13 on appeal.
We reverse the rejection of dependent claim 14 because
neither Missios nor appellants’ admitted prior art indicates
that the degraded mode comprises the feature of operating the
one functional unit at a reduced clock speed while continuing
to operate the others at a normal clock speed.
Finally, we turn to the features in independent claim 15
on appeal. Again, the rejection of this claim is sustained
for the reasons set forth earlier. The rejection of claim 16
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007