Appeal No. 2000-1513
Application No. 08/829,088
easily understood. If the examiner is suggesting that there is
something inadequate about the description or disclosure of the
invention, that may constitute a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112,
but it has no place within 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The examiner must
treat the limitation, “in a recursive manner” and may not ignore
it as he apparently has done in the instant case.
The simple language of the claim, “categorization, in a
recursive manner,” appears to be very broad in nature and we
question whether the language at column 9, lines 53-56, of
Hausauer might meet that language. That is, if the reading of
the status register does not tell on which bus the error
occurred, the software searches the devices on both PCI buses to
locate the source of the error. If devices on both PCI buses are
searched, this would appear to indicate a “recursive” manner of
“categorizing” since the errors are categorized and going back to
search for errors would appear to be a “recursive” manner.
However, appellants want the term, “categorizing, in a recursive
manner” to include following the path of the error condition and
following 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. Although not specifically limited in the
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007