Appeal No. 1997-0333
Application 08/521,162
requirement of the claims since Hayes provides a dynamic redundancy option which reconfigures
around a faulty node. We note at the outset that this limitation is set forth in means-plus-function
language. We are in agreement with the examiner that this feature is met by Hayes as discussed below.
We agree with the examiner that the processor ring of Figure 7.55(c) (see Hayes, page 650)
serves to reconfigure, and thus serves the same purpose as the "means for disenabling . . . " of
appellant’s claim 1. The reconfiguring in Hayes is an equivalent function to the recitation in claim 1 of
isolating and disenabling of a faulty node while maintaining communication, to the extent that this feature
is broadly set forth in the claim. Indeed, the entire purpose of Hayes’ disclosed "fault-tolerant
computer" is to "’...execute specified algorithms correctly regardless of hardware failures and program
errors’" (Hayes, page 664). As stated by Hayes, "fault tolerance is a major design goal [in some
applications]" (Hayes, page 664). As discussed in Hayes, "[a] system with dynamic redundancy
tolerates faults by actively reorganizing the system so that the functions of the faulty unit are transferred
to one or more fault-free units," such as by "logically reconfiguring the system around the fault" (Hayes,
page 666). Accordingly, we find that Hayes teaches the feature recited in representative claim 1 of a
"means for disenabling, isolating, and sacrificing a node having a short circuit without redundancy or
repair." We find that the language "without redundancy or repair" is met by Hayes, since one option in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007