Appeal No. 1997-2865
Application 08/113,789
tasks for diverse CPCs at the computer installation
as recited in Appellants' claim 1. In the reply brief on
pages 7 and 8, Appellants argue that Fox communicates a mes-
sage to another processor and the message is communicated
after a request has been set by a console to the configuration
and control unit (CACU) and after the request has been exe-
cuted by the CACU setting up a path to the selected processor.
Appellants point out that Fox does not communicate console
requests to a selected CPC to form the request as required by
Appellants' claim 1. Appellants point out that Fox operates
totally differently in that Fox communicates console requests
affecting other systems to its CACU processor which performs
a request for the system, because its system cannot perform
such requests, and the requests are not performed by a se-
lected CPC.
Appellants further point out on pages 8 and 9 of the
reply brief that neither Fox nor White teaches or suggests
"communicating by the control console to each selected CPC a
request to perform the associated common operational control
function" as required by Appellants' claim 1. Appellants
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007