Appeal No. 1998-0066
Application 08/258,235
teaches generating a physical memory (core) dump and
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
signaling to indicate when to initiate a dump and when to
have the backup processor begin working.
We refer to the First Office Action (Paper No. 5), the
Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "FR__")
and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20) (pages referred to
as "EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's position and to
the Brief (Paper No. 19) (pages referred to as "Br__") for a
statement of Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants group the claims into two groups:
(1) claims 1-12 are argued to stand or fall together; and
(2) claims 13-21 are argued to stand or fall together.
The relevant teachings of Krings and Aslanian are
described by Appellants (Br7-8).
Claims 1-12
We find that Krings does not disclose the following
limitations of claim 1: (1) "sending a system disconnection
command and a dump acquisition command from said backup
processor to said operating processor" when a failure occurs
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007