Appeal 2006-2705
Application 09/947,824
by both references and because both references teach physical structure
related monitoring information of actual devices in the system, Linam being
more specific as to this feature than McLaughlin; the identification of a
particular bus log is clearly indicated in Linam’s teachings. The Markush
group of features in dependent claim 4 is known to be a part of the prior art
at Specification page 2, paragraph [0003] at least for a parity error situation.
Linam teaches the ability to diagnose input/output control information
failures directly. Because of this, the ability to apply the teaching value of
Linam to memory controllers of dependent claim 2 would have been an
obvious variation thereof, particularly in view of Appellant’s prior art figure
1B.
We note in passing that the subject matter of the claims on appeal
appear to be taught or suggested to the artisan within the teaching value of
Appellant’s admitted prior art Figures 1A and 1B coupled with the
corresponding discussion at Specification pages 1 through 3. Indeed, the
showing at the middle to the bottom portion of prior art Figure 1B appears to
show the preexistence in the prior art of sentence-type information conveyed
to the user of memory errors and input/output module errors as well. It
appears to us that the artisan in the data processing arts would have
recognized such showings as being a “sentence” to the extent recited in the
disputed clause at the end of each independent claim on appeal.
In like manner, it appears to us that the subject matter presented in all
claims on appeal relates to features that may differ from the prior art solely
on the basis of “non-functional descriptive material,” which is generally not
given patentable weight when determining patentability of an invention over
the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013