Appeal No. 96-4106
Application No. 08/271,238
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 4,
5, 11, 12, 26 through 28, 31 through 33 and 35 through 37. In
the final rejection, claims 1 through 3, 19 through 25 and 34
were indicated as being allowable, and claims 13, 29 and 30
were listed as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including
all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 18), claims
38 through 40 were added to the application. In an Advisory
Action (paper number 20), claims 38 through 40 were added to
the list of allowable claims. As a result of the withdrawal
of the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 12 and 37 (Answer, page
3), and the allowance of these claims (Answer, page 1), claims
26 through 28, 31 through 33, 35 and 36 are the only claims
that remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
that checks the proper operation of a processor unit by
operating a copy of the processor unit, and by comparing the
output signals from the two processor units. The operation of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007