Appeal 2006-2705
Application 09/947,824
As to each independent claim 1, 9, and 16, the principal issue is
whether the collective teachings and showings of McLaughlin and Linam
meet the claimed feature “code for generating at least one explanatory
sentence utilizing at least said data present in said internal memory.”
Appellant presents no arguments as to the Examiner’s assessment of
the teaching value of McLaughlin. We also agree with the Examiner’s
assessment that this reference does not teach the quoted feature of each
respective independent claim. The showings in Figures 3 and 4 and the
corresponding discussion at columns 4 and 5 of McLaughlin emphasize the
collection of data in an error log 42 in Figure 3 generally depicted in Figure
4. There is no apparent manifestation to the user or display of the error log
information. Figure 4 of McLaughlin shows a collection of data in various
internal registers.
On the other hand, Linam also utilizes the same concept of an error
log 206 in Figure 2, which log is shown in Figure 3 apparently
corresponding to the hex-dump in prior art Figures 1A and 1B of the
Specification as filed. The manner of operation is depicted for software
accessible and software non-accessible registers within the internal operation
of the computer system of Figure 2 according to Figures 4 and 5.
In the manner corresponding to the Appellant’s admitted prior art, the
Examiner makes reference to the discussion at the bottom of column 4 of
Linam that non-volatile memories are utilized to store firmware-based
processing code to effect the monitoring operations in Linam. This is
consistent with the firmware 16 in Figure 1 of McLaughlin. Thus, to the
extent that Appellant’s arguments argue that Linam does not teach the
feature of a non-volatile memory storing code to monitor data of a computer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013