Appeal No. 1997-0333
Application 08/521,162
Figure 7.66 is not to repair or replace a node with a spare (redundancy) but to "reconfigure” around the
faulty unit. As clearly stated by Hayes, a fault is removed by "repairing the faulty unit, replacing it by a
spare unit, or logically reconfiguring the system around the fault" (Hayes, page 666)(emphasis added).
We agree with appellant (Brief, page 8) that Hayes does not meet the requirement of the claims
of a "means for raising a voltage to the nodes higher than normal such that the raised voltage blows a
fuse of a node having a partial short" (representative claim 1). The examiner’s bald assertion that
everyone knows how a fuse works is not dispositive of whether or not Hayes teaches or would have
suggested the specific means recited or its equivalent. The examiner has not met his burden of showing
where Hayes teaches or would have suggested using a fuse or a means for blowing a fuse. We can find
no motivation for modifying Hayes to achieve the invention of claim 1 on appeal, requiring a means for
raising a voltage to blow a fuse when a node has a partial short.
The examiner has failed to make a prima facie case that Hayes would have taught or suggested
the main control system, parallel redundant communication path, or means for raising a voltage as
claimed. The examiner has also failed to sufficiently explain how the applied reference to Hayes would
be properly modified to meet this subject matter as recited in the claims on appeal. Although we do
find that Hayes provides a means for maintaining communication after dealing with a faulty node, we
find that the differences between the subject matter recited in the claims and in Hayes are such that the
claimed subject matter as a whole would not have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007