Appeal No. 2005-1270 4
Application No. 09/798,169
Taking claim 9 as exemplary, it is the examiner’s position that Houston
anticipates the claim in the following manner:
The examiner cites column 2, line 36, of Houston, viz., “The storage device is
capable of executing commands received from a host processor and detecting errors in
the performance of those commands,” and alleges that this is a teaching of the claimed,
“detecting, by a partition manager, a fault state in the data processing system.” For a
teaching of the claimed, “saving data relating to the fault state in a power independent
memory that is included within a service processor in the data processing system,” the
examiner cites the abstract of Houston, viz., “When an error is detected by the storage
device, the previously executed commands and certain error condition codes are stored
in an error log in a non-volatile memory of the storage device.”
The examiner explains that the storage device has a reserved part set aside for
some purpose, and calls this a “partition.” Further, the examiner explains that a “service
processor” is nothing more than a system that processes services (answer-page 5).
For their part, appellants argue that Houston teaches neither a service processor
nor a partition manager and that Houston does not teach storing data relating to the
fault state in an independent memory that is included within a service processor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007