Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
Turning next to independent claim 5 on appeal, we sustain
the rejection here essentially for the same reasons as we did
for claim 1 on appeal. The additional requirement that the
error is caused by a timing dependent defect is clearly taught
by the reference since it is stated to be a feature of the
reference at least in the second sentence of the abstract. A
feature of dependent claim 6 on appeal has already been
discussed with respect to our earlier views as they apply to
our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claim 7 because the feature
of iteratively increasing the instruction processing cycle
time does not appear to be taught or suggested in the
reference until the first of two alternative conditions may
have occurred. The examiner’s position in the answer does not
detail a discussion of this claim. The rejection of claim 8
is reversed for the same reason as we reversed the rejection
of claim 2 as to the deferred service call recitation. Since
claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 8, the rejection of them is
reversed as well.
Turning next to the rejection of claim 11, we sustain
this rejection. It contains a similar feature of the timing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007