Appeal 2006-2705
Application 09/947,824
system to be stored in internal registers, both references appear to teach this
capability.
Moreover, the Examiner’s reliance upon the corresponding teachings
at Figures 5 and 6 of Linam as teaching the disputed, quoted language of
each independent claim is well taken. The Examiner strongly takes the view
that the “message” discussed in these locations to output the result of
monitoring operations of the system in Linam constitutes the claimed
sentence of each independent claim on appeal noted earlier in this opinion.
Appellant strongly disagrees. The noted portions at columns 5 and 6 of
Linam teach that the message may be outputted to a video display terminal
such as to, for example, explain to the user what to do. Element 418 in
Figure 4 appears to teach or at least strongly suggest that the message
“replace adapter” is outputted to the user on a video display terminal as a
declarative sentence of the type set forth at the end of each independent
claim on appeal.
Additionally, because both references teach the concept of storing
error log information, it would have been clearly obvious for the artisan to
have followed in the system of McLaughlin the approach followed by Linam
such as to actually display to the user in some form or otherwise alert the
user of the result of an error log process. Linam may properly therefore be
viewed as enhancing the operability and usability of the system of
McLaughlin.
It is thus seen that the requirements of dependent claim 7 indicating a
component for replacement and the features of dependent claim 8 of human
readable sentences clearly are indicated among the combined teachings and
showings. The memory address feature of dependent claim 6 again is taught
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013