Appeal No. 1997-1984
Application 08/408,127
Strictly speaking, Farrand teaches error detection and reporting in a computer system with the use of a
remote site as recited in claim 1 on appeal. Thus, we agree with the examiner (final Office action, page
3) that Farrand teaches a computer system where a remote manager is notified upon detection of an
error. Accordingly, we must sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Farrand
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in claims 3 to 6 and
the reference to Farrand are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would not have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the rejection of
claims 3 to 6 on appeal. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claim 1, since we find that
Farrand meets the broadly recited system limitations of claim 1 on appeal.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 3 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007