Appeal No. 1998-0066
Application 08/258,235
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1-12 is reversed.
Claims 13-21
System claims 13-21 include essentially the same
limitations as claims 1-12 except stated in means-plus-
function format and with slightly different wording. We
find that Krings does not disclose the following limitations
of claim 13: (1) "means . . . for sending to said operating
processor a command for releasing said system resource and
for dumping data" upon detecting a failure in the operating
processor; (2) "means for transmitting a disconnection
complete notice to said backup processor"; (3) "means . . .
for dumping data"; (4) "means for releasing said system
resource independently of completion of dumping of data";
and (5) the "operating data processor exclusively occupies
said system resource during a normal operation of said
operating processor" and "said backup processor having means
. . . for exclusively occupying said system resource."
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 1, we
conclude that the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007