Appeal No. 2005-1270 9
Application No. 09/798,169
as a “processor,” the non-volatile memory within the storage device of Houston is
included within that “processor.” Moreover, while appellants offer definitions for the
term “processor,” and contend that Houston does not teach such a processor,
appellants never define the claimed term, “service processor,” in any meaningful way to
distinguish over any type of general processor. Thus, again, we are unconvinced by
appellants’ argument of any error in the examiner’s rationale for the rejection.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 9-11, 26-28, and 37-39 under
35 U.S.C. §102 (e).
Turning to the rejection of claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. §103, the examiner sets
forth, at pages 5-7 of the answer, the application of Nota to the independent claims.
While noting, at page 7 of the answer, that Nota fails to specifically disclose the memory
as “power independent,” the examiner takes Official notice of the notoriety of non-
volatile memories which may include, for example, core memory, ROM, EPROM, flash
memory, bubble memory, and battery-backed CMOS-RAM. The examiner indicates
that the skilled artisan would have stored data in such non-volatile memories in order to
avoid the loss of data when power is lost.
Appellants argue that Nota is deficient in at least three areas:
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007