Appeal No. 1998-0747
Application 08/609,958
Opinion
We will not sustain any of the above rejections.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 over Yajima and
Ozaki, the examiner indicates at page 5 of the answer that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to
combine the switches of Ozaki with Yajima in order to isolate a
failed processor unit, such as 12 in Figure 1, from the rest of
the circuit until it is repaired and placed back in service. We
are not persuaded by this position. It appears from the
description of Yajima’s apparatus at column 6, line 30, to column
7, line 15, that once a processor unit or component such as 12 has
failed, its function is transferred to component 11. While
component 11 is performing the function of component 12, component
12 is shut down
and could be repaired and placed back in service without the
switches of Ozaki.
As indicated above, the examiner relies on switches in Ozaki
to meet the claim recitation of a plurality of switches connected
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007