Appeal No. 97-1246 Page 7
Application No. 08/196,731
independent claim 1 and claims 2 and 3, both of which depend
from claim 1. The second group comprises independent claim 4.
The third and last group comprises independent claim 5 and
claims 6, 7, and 10, all three of which depend from claim 5.
Because the appellants failed to argue separately the
patentability of any of the dependent claims, the dependent
claims in each of the three groups will stand or fall with
their independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7);
M.P.E.P. § 1206; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Obviousness
Regarding independent claims 1, 4, and 5, the examiner
basically finds that Amini discloses all the claimed
limitations except embodying them as a one-chip microprocessor
and, upon detection of a parity error, suspending instruction
execution and outputting a signal off the chip to indicate
occurrence of an error. (Final Rejection, pp. 2-4) Regarding
the single-chip embodiment, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to integrate Amini’s computer system
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007