Appeal No. 2003-1515
Application No. 09/364,014
We make reference to the final Office action (Paper No. 6,
mailed June 27, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
January 28, 2003) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief
(Paper No. 10, filed November 25, 2002) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed March 28, 2003) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-9,
11-22 and 24-30, the main point of contention is whether
assessing the criticality of a failure, as disclosed by Skeie, is
equivalent to assessing a risk level, as recited in the claims.
The Examiner generally argues that assessing the criticality of a
failure is the same as assessing a risk level whereas Appellants
direct their arguments to the contrast between assessing a risk
level prior to failure and evaluating the effect of an existing
failure on the other systems. Furthermore, Appellants assert
that the Examiner ignores the fact that the claimed sub-system
risk test is not just determining some risk information, but
requires subjecting the sub-system to a “test”1 in order to
establish a risk (reply brief, page 3).
1 Appellants rely on a dictionary definition of the term “test” as a
procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of
something.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007