Appeal No. 2004-0545
Application No. 09/510,569
The examiner responds to these arguments on page 9 of the answer,
arguing that Rakavy teaches an electronic connection between the computer and
server. The examiner states:
The act of passing control to the CPU 110, shows that the computer (400)
is able to operate on its own and no longer need to be electronically
connected with the remote workstation (200) as indicated by the network
enhanced BIOS ceasing to function (Col 11, lines 20-30). By ceasing to
function, computer (400) is disconnected electronically from the
workstation (200) which means that it is decoupled from the network.
Further, the examiner argues that the appellants’ arguments directed to
“physically” connecting and disconnecting, are not considered, as the claim does
not contain such a limitation.
We concur with the examiner that Rakavy teaches coupling between the
computer and the server, and that the claim is not limited to physically coupling
and decoupling the computer to the server. However, we disagree with the
examiner that the act of passing control to the CPU meets the claimed step of
decoupling. We find that the plain meaning of the claim limitation of decoupling,
as argued by appellants, is “the data processing system is separated apart from
the server.”2 However, we do not construe the limitation as narrowly to only
include physical separation, but rather to be broad enough to include electrical
separation. Thus, we do not find that Rakavy teaches the claim step of
2 We note, for the reasons stated infra, appellants’ specification provides no assistance
in interpreting this limitation as it is devoid of any disclosure related to decoupling.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007