Appeal No. 1998-0747
Application 08/609,958
With respect to the last paragraph of claim 1 and Yajima’s
Figure 1, elements 21 and 21 are identified as control1 2
processors.
As such, each comprises a single controller of a component 11 or
12. At column 6, lines 37-42, Yajima discloses that occurrence of
a fault in component 12 is transmitted as a fault signal from unit
12 to the fault detector 43 in component 11. Accordingly,
1
controller 21 of component 11 monitors the status of information
1
received from
component 12 and detects when that component has failed. As a
consequence of this monitoring and detection, controller 211
functions to control the switches of connection circuits 24 and
processor interface section 31 such that component 11 replaces
failed component 12 (column 6, line 43 to column 7, line 15). At
column 8, lines 5-9, Yajima discloses that the processor units may
be greater in number than two.
In their reply brief to the new ground of rejection of claims
1-7 as obvious over Yajima and Ozaki in the answer, appellants did
not argue that Yajima does not meet the subject matter of
dependent claims 2 and 5-7. At pages 5 and 6 of the answer, the
examiner made a specific showing as to how the subject matter of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007