Appeal No. 1998-0714
Application No. 08/092,622
Claim 9, the representative for the third group of
claims, clearly recites two central processing units in which
the second is enclosed in a housing that can be mounted in a
slot for receiving a disk drive. As indicated above, the
references teach away from including a second central
processing unit. Kobayashi also suggests that the PPM should
be as small as possible, and should not be limited to the size
of a disk drive slot. Thus, no prima facie case of
obviousness has been established. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 9 through 15.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a cabinet for
housing a computer system and two general purpose computers,
each with a central processing unit, wherein the second
general purpose computer is disposed in a disk drive opening
in a panel of the cabinet. As previously determined, the
combination of Kobayashi and Blackborow does not teach or
suggest two central processing units. Further, neither
reference suggests providing the second central processing
unit in a disk drive opening in a panel of a computer system
cabinet. Consequently, as no prima facie case of obviousness
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007