Appeal No. 2000-1363
Application No. 08/848,374
(2) claims 5 through 7, 9, 11, and 12, (3) claims 13 and 14,
(4) claims 16 and 21, and claims 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 through 19
are each to stand alone. We will treat the claims in the
groupings suggested by appellants, with claims 1, 5, 13, and 16
as representative of the four groups.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 7, 9,
11 through 14, 16, and 21 and reverse the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 8, 10, 15, and 17 through 19.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that ASUS and Harada are
not combinable. We, however, find that Harada alone satisfies
many of the claim limitations, with ASUS merely being cumulative.
Accordingly, we will focus primarily on Harada.
Appellants contend (Brief, page 7) that the references fail
to teach all of the claim limitations. Specifically, appellants
assert that in ASUS "[t]he only retrievably stored settings are
the default settings," and in Harada the I/O adapter
configurations referenced by the examiner "do not comprise the
entire set of configuration settings for a computer system." We
agree with both assertions. However, appellants admit that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007