Appeal No. 2002-2259
Application No. 09/083,959
Appellants argue that Kinoshita merely determines whether a
new processor is compatible with the existing system and differs
from the claimed method of providing additional processors that
are compatible with an existing multiprocessor system (brief,
page 6). Additionally, Appellants assert that the tables
described in Kinoshita store only information regarding the
processors currently present in the system and are used to
compare the compatibility of a new version and/or revision number
to the existing processors (brief, pages 6 &7 and oral hearing).
Appellants add that Kinoshita can determine the compatibility of
an updated processor only after the processor to be updated has
been added to the system (brief, page 7). Appellant assert that
even if Kinoshita’s disclosure is added to Appellants’ admitted
prior art, Milne and Alpert, the combination could not result in
the claimed comparison with compatibility information to
determine the processors that can be added (brief, page 7 and
reply brief, page 2). Appellants further urge that the Examiner
cites each of the cited references for describing one aspect of
the claimed subject matter and makes the combination merely based
on Appellants’ solution for determining compatible processors
(brief, page 11).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007