Appeal No. 1999-1594
Application No. 08/491,467
mailed July 10, 1998), and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed August 20, 1998) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 10, filed June 4, 1998), Reply Brief
(Paper No. 13, filed August 3, 1998), and Supplemental Reply
Brief (Paper No. 15, filed September 25, 1998) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 7 through 10,
18, 19, and 21.
The examiner admits (First Office Action, page 2) that Allen
lacks the claimed switch between the first and second busses for
selectively isolating the busses or joining them into a single
bus. The examiner asserts (First Office Action, pages 2-3) that:
Graber teaches the selective isolation or connection of
system buses (see Abstract). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
Allen to include the switches of Graber to isolate or
connect the 12(n) bus to the 14(n+1). This
modification would have been obvious because one of
ordinary skill would have wanted to improve upon the
fault-tolerance of the Allen system. Allen provides
it is desired to incorporate by reference should be explicitly
identified. (Underlining ours for emphasis)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007