Appeal No. 1997-0706
Application No. 08/040,528
claims 1 and 7, as well as claims 6, 12, 18, and 19 dependent
thereon, cannot be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of independent claim 13, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
this claim as well. While claim 13 does not include a
recitation of determining chip type by reading a predetermined
memory location of an installed chip, there is a clear,
specific recitation of a step of determining whether an
installed chip “is required to be accessed as a boot device.”
We find no disclosure of any such feature in Chuang, nor do we
find any indication from the Examiner’s line of reasoning as
to how the disclosure of Chuang could be interpreted as
meeting such claim limitation.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of any of the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7,
12, 13, 18, and 19 is reversed.
REVERSED
Joseph F. Ruggiero )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007