Appeal No. 96-1439 Application 08/338,976 for the same but amplified reasons since the feature of continuing the processing of a remainder of functional units when one has been determined to have an error is met by the capability expressed in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the disclosure as to features known in the art. When one processing element is determined to have an error in the prior art, the remaining processing elements are continued or allowed to continue processing a stream of instructions while the one with the error is taken “off-line.” Because the remaining active elements are stated to continue processing the instruction stream, the same performance level appears to have been met by the prior art approach as set forth in the last lines of claim 13 on appeal. We reverse the rejection of dependent claim 14 because neither Missios nor appellants’ admitted prior art indicates that the degraded mode comprises the feature of operating the one functional unit at a reduced clock speed while continuing to operate the others at a normal clock speed. Finally, we turn to the features in independent claim 15 on appeal. Again, the rejection of this claim is sustained for the reasons set forth earlier. The rejection of claim 16 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007