Appeal No. 2002-2259
Application No. 09/083,959
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed March 12, 2002) for
the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 22,
filed January 9, 2002) and the reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed
May 30, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, 17,
19-21, 23, 24, 26-28 and 30-33, the Examiner relies on
Appellants’ admitted prior art and asserts that the manual method
of determining the model and revision number of the existing CPUs
is well known (answer, page 4). The Examiner further relies on
Milne for manual addition of CPUs in a symmetric multiprocessing
(SMP) system and on Alpert for disclosing a technique for
identifying processor features using software (answer, page 5)
and reasons that an automated determination would reduce user
intervention and compatibility problems (answer, page 6).
Finally, the Examiner adds teachings from Kinoshita related to a
method for adjusting and managing the generation numbers of
processors for determining compatibility (answer, page 6) that
permits the user to determine the modification or addition of
processors in a system (answer, page 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007