Appeal No. 97-1246 Page 8
Application No. 08/196,731
onto a single chip to reduce the size of the system and reduce
power consumption,(Id. at 3), thereby reducing cost.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 9) Based on Amini’s teaching that its
central processing unit can take whatever action is
appropriate upon detection of an error, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to suspend execution of
instructions. (Final Rejection, p. 3) The examiner also
seems to conclude that it would have been obvious to output a
signal off the chip to indicate occurrence of an error because
the outputting of error signals was well known at the time of
the appellant’s invention. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5)
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, the appellants argue that
the examiner failed to show that integration into a single
chip would have been obvious at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the appellants also argue that Amini
teaches isolating faulty devices and continuing operation
rather than suspending execution of instructions. (Brief, pp.
7-9) The appellants also note that the examiner fails to
explain why outputting a signal off the chip would have been
necessary. (Id., p. 11-12)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007