Appeal No. 2005-1270 8
Application No. 09/798,169
without specifics as to how appellants’ partitioned storage differs from the storage
device of Houston, or why the examiner’s rationale is in error, is not persuasive.
Since it is clear that Houston’s storage device is “partitioned,” in the sense that
the error log is kept separate from other data items stored in the storage device, there
must, of necessity, be something in Houston’s system that “manages” that partition, so
that the system knows where to store the error log data within the data storage device..
Accordingly, in our view, Houston does disclose, broadly, a “partition manager,” as
claimed. Since Houston’s storage device detects errors (see Abstract), it appears that
Houston teaches a detection, by a partition manager, of a fault state in the data
processing system, as claimed. Appellants have provided nothing to convincingly rebut
the examiner’s position since appellants’ arguments merely consist of generally denying
the existence, in Houston, of the claimed steps and elements, without specifically
addressing the examiner’s rationale for finding those claimed steps and elements.
The final issue is whether Houston discloses that the non-volatile memory is
included within a “service processor,” as claimed.
We again find ourselves siding with the examiner in interpreting the term,
“service processor,” broadly. Since the system of Houston may be interpreted, broadly,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007