Appeal No. 96-1439
Application 08/338,976
clock frequency. The examiner’s reasoning also appears to
overuse the assertion that features were well known in the
prior art without providing appropriate prior art to add
evidence to that assertion.
It is also apparent that to the extent we affirm the
rejection as noted earlier, we also do not agree with all of
appellants’ assertions in the brief and reply brief. We do
not construe the independent claims on appeal as asserting
positively a feature requiring fault tolerance and error
recovery to the extent argued. Nor does the initial retry
operation of claims 1, 5 and 15 reciting this feature
specifically require it to be at a normal clock frequency. It
is further noted, however, that an
initial normal clock frequency test is a part of block D1 in
Fig. 1 of Missios and at least a portion of each of blocks D3,
D6 and D9 as explained beginning at col. 2.
Additionally, to the extent recited in the independent
claims on appeal, and in contradistinction to the assertions
made, there is no clear recitation of the requirement of a
stream of instructions in each independent claim but in some
cases merely an “operation” associated with the operation of
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007