Appeal No. 2006-1937
Application No. 10/215,651
nor has the examiner pointed to anything, indicative of the software performing or capable of
performing the function ascribed to it by the examiner. Such speculation is improper in a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-11, and 18-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 since each of independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 24 contains the limitation of the
blade service controller “operable to transmit a signal to an external service processor to identify
the server blade as a particular one of a predetermined set of server blade types,” or something
akin thereto, and the examiner, in each instance, relies on Guyer to provide this limitation.
Since neither Bottom nor Jackson provides for this deficiency, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-6, 9-11, and 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007