Appeal No. 2002-2238
Application No. 09/107,768
For claim 8: ...the program configured to selectively remove
power from a failed hardware device and supply power to a
replacement hardware device in response to user input supplied to
the control panel ...
For claim 14: ...the program configured to selectively
remove power from the failed hardware device and supply power to
the replacement hardware device in response to user input supplied
to a control panel in the computer...
The examiner has put forth no convincing evidence to support
the contention that the user input is necessarily and inevitably
the means by which the power is turned off and on to the PCI slot.
It may just as well be automatic, in the event of lockup
detection, or another software routine. The examiner has not made
the required showing. Consequently, we shall reverse this
rejection as it applies to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-16.
Turning now to claim 24, the appellants correctly note that
claim 24 has not been specifically addressed in the office actions
(Appeal Brief, page 8, lines 5-12), and we observe that failure
has been carried forward in the Examiner’s Answer.
In the § 102 rejection set forth on pages 2-3 of paper 7, the
Examiner has merely described the reference without specifically
identifying which portions of the reference disclosures that are
considered to satisfy each and every limitation of each of the
claims on appeal (i.e., at least those appealed claims which have
been separately grouped and argued by the appellants). See the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007