Appeal No. 1997-1984
Application 08/408,127
In fact, our careful review of Farrand reveals that after a complete loss of power occurs (a
catastrophic failure), the event is reported to the remote facility (column 7, lines 34 to 41). After alert
determination element 52 detects an error such as power failure, it then issues an alert (i.e., an error
report). As stated by Farrand, "[i]n addition to alert determination and generation . . . , the information
processing and alert determination element 52 also perform several other functions" (column 8, lines 65
to 68), such as post mortem diagnostics and/or rebooting (column 9, lines 3 to 20). Thus, we agree
with appellants that in Farrand "[t]he attempted reboot is in response to the error report" (Brief, page
8). Claims 3 to 6 on appeal all require that the firmware mechanism (claims 3 to 5) or firmware routine
(claim 6) perform error reporting "if the system cannot be rebooted" (claims 3 to 5) or "if rebooting
cannot be successfully performed" (claim 6). Accordingly, since Farrand reboots after error
detection/reporting and the invention recited in claims 3 to 6 attempts reboot before error reporting, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 1 on appeal, we find that this claim does not require any rebooting to
occur. Therefore, appellants’ arguments discussed earlier, that rebooting be done by firmware and that
rebooting occur before error reporting, are moot. The language in claim 1 of "without requiring the
system to be successfully rebooted" does not require that any rebooting actually occur, whether the
reboot be successful or otherwise. Claim 1 contains no positive requirement that rebooting be
attempted or be successful. Accordingly, all that remains is system error detection and error reporting.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007