Appeal No. 1997-3426
Application 08/373,052
Appellants argue that what is described is the internal
workings of one of the diagnostic nodes 100 (Figs. 6A-6C) in
cooperation with an unillustrated local diagnostic processor
(Br13) and that there is no disclosure that any circuitry
assumes control over signal lines of the leaf node processors
200 (Br14).
In response, the Examiner basically repeats the
statements in the Final Rejection (EA9-10).
Appellants further argue (RBr6-7): "In that the network
interface 202 is coupled to the processor 200 through the
memory bus 203, it is not seen where or how the network
interface 202 can 'assume control of at least some of the data
processor signal lines for executing a function' specified by
a received packet."
We agree with Appellants that it is unknown how the
network interface 202 in Figure 8 can "assume control of at
least some of the data processor signal lines for executing a
function specified by the packet" since it is connected to the
processor 200 through the memory bus 203. The Examiner does
not explain how network interface 202 or diagnostic network
interface 206 can assume control of the processor 200. The
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007