Appeal 2007-1786
Application 10/121,365
1 § 102(b) Appellant contends that claim 1 is not anticipated by Ishii because
2 Ishii is directed to backup computing processors and is not directed to
3 emergency control means and an emergency control unit which allow
4 operation independent of a central control unit. (Br. 4.) Appellant explains
5 that "[c]laim 1 requires, in part, one or more of the peripheral apparatus
6 being provided with emergency control means which are arranged to allow
7 the peripheral apparatus to operate independently from the central control
8 unit." (Id.) According to Appellant, (Br. 4) "Ishii teaches that the operating
9 peripheral apparatus is always under the control of the CPU 11." It is
10 argued, (id.) that if both the control unit and emergency control means are
11 satisfied by CPU 11 then it is not possible that the emergency control means
12 of Ishii are arranged to allow the peripheral apparatus to operate
13 independently from the central control unit. Appellant further contends that
14 claim 1 requires, inter alia, an emergency control unit for controlling the
15 emergency control means independently from the central control, and that
16 since the Office Action states that in Ishii, the central control unit and the
17 emergency control unit are one and the same, Ishii does not teach or suggest
18 an emergency control unit for controlling the emergency control means
19 independently from the central control.
20 The Examiner contends that the CPU of Ishii functions as both a
21 central control unit and an emergency control unit. (Answer 3.) The
22 Examiner argues that given the fact “that the peripheral apparatus can
23 operate in response to the control signals from the emergency control unit,
24 which is part of the CPU 11, it inherently operates independently from the
25 normal action deciding means, which is also part of CPU 11.” (Answer 4.)
26
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013