Ex Parte EIDE et al - Page 10




          Appeal No. 2002-2238                                                          
          Application No. 09/107,768                                                    
               The examiner has found that Mahalingam discloses all of the              
          claimed invention except for powering down the entire bus and                 
          restoring power when the failed device has been swapped.  The                 
          examiner has additionally taken official notice of a fact as                  
          follows:                                                                      

               Regarding Claim 3, Official Notice is take [sic] with regards            
               to the removable [sic] of power to an entire bus during a hot            
               swap and restoring the power to the entire bus when it has               
               finished, in an analogous art to enable a hot swap operation             
               without having the added the [sic] complexity of controlling             
               power to each device on the bus individually.  By powering               
               down the entire bus it reduces the number of circuits and                
               control lines needed for hot plug, but it does limit create              
               [sic] bus down time during hot swapping (Paper 7, page 3,                
               lines 10-15).1                                                           
               The appellants have not provided any additional arguments as             
          regards claim 3, other than to note that claim 3 was rejected                 
          under a different statutory basis.                                            
               As we have reversed the rejection of claim 1, from which                 
          claim 3 depends, we likewise reverse this rejection for the                   
                                                                                       
          1 Although the appellants have not challenged this finding                    
          directly, we observe that the wording of the finding itself is                
          somewhat vague.  In other words, we find it difficult to ascertain            
          what exactly the examiner has taken official notice of.  Does the             
          examiner mean to say that it is well known in the art to turn off             
          the entire bus in a hot swap operation for computer maintenance?              
          Or does this finding pertain to an undefined “analogous art?”  Or             
          that it is known to shut the whole bus down instead of a single               
          socket in order to reduce the complexity of the system?  As we                
          have no way of knowing the examiner’s mindset other than through              
          the written record, it is imperative that a clear statement of any            
          Official Notice be made.  By way of observation, we query whether             
          shutting down the entire bus (as opposed to a single slot) would              
          impair other functions and data access, as suggested by the                   
                                          10                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007