Appeal No. 2000-1513
Application No. 08/829,088
We will not sustain the rejection of the claims under
35 U.S.C. 102(e) because the examiner has not convinced us that
Hausauer is an anticipatory reference with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter.
We have reviewed the applied reference, especially the
portions referenced by the examiner, and we do not find therein,
a disclosure of the claimed “categorizing, in a recursive manner,
the I/O subsystem” or “forming an error log based on the
categorizing.”
These terms are clearly explained at pages 7-8 of the
instant specification, in connection with Figure 4, which depicts
“categorizing, in a recursive manner...” We must interpret the
term, “categorizing, in a recursive manner” to include following
the path of the error condition. As explained at page 6 of the
specification, “categorization” follows a specific order in a
process of elimination manner to take into consideration all of
the possibilities for errors that exist for data propagation
within the hierarchical tree structure of the I/O subsystem.
Hausauer, on the other hand, as explained by appellants,
teaches unifying error signals before presenting the error
signals to the processor. While the reference teaches that a
processor reads interrupt status registers to locate error groups
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007