Appeal No. 97-0280
Application 08/192,839
not concerned with using redundant processors where each
processor processes the same information, but instead Dooley is
concerned with maintenance of a computer system having field
replaceable units.
We do not agree that those skilled in the art would have
been led to use the highly complex signature detecting method to
isolate the source of error as taught by Dooley in the simple
Stevens fault location system using redundant processors. The
Examiner reasons that Dooley's teaching of fault isolation is by
itself a suggestion for combinability. However, this does not
answer the question of desirability of such a modification when
Stevens provides for a more simple method of fault isolation. We
fail to find a suggestion in the prior art to combine Stevens
with Dooley, and thereby we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
In regard to the rejection of claim 3, we note that the
Examiner has relied upon the combinability of Stevens and Dooley
to obtain Appellants’ claimed invention. Since there is no
evidence in the record that the prior art suggested the
desirability of such a modification, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as well.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007