Appeal No. 2002-1319 Page 16
Application No. 08/974,971
rejection of claims 23-28 and 30-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeRoo in view of either of Oh or Boehmer.
We turn next to claim 29. The examiner's position is that
the references render the claims obvious and relies upon a
Doctrine of Equivalents analysis based upon the known interchange
ability between a jumper-based approach and a software approach
of configuring digital equipment (answer, page 7). The examiner
relies upon Boehmer for a teaching that a register may be
reprogrammed by the user by the use of jumpers or through
software. The examiner additionally relies upon OH for a
teaching of setting options in a configuration control register,
instead of the hardware jumper method, by means of a software
program (answer, pages 7 and 8). In the examiner's opinion, it
would have been obvious to use commands for the purpose of
modifying the contents of the HUICFG_1 register. Appellant's
assert (brief, page 11) that the prior art does not teach or
suggest that the control unit is configured to modify the
information in response to receiving a predeterminer sequence of
bus write cycles. We agree. As we found, supra, DeRoo teaches
modifying the boot code section information through the use of
hardware, using pull-up and pull-down resistors. We find no
teaching or suggestion in DeRoo, and none has been pointed to by
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007