Appeal No. 2005-1270 11
Application No. 09/798,169
With regard to appellants’ first assertion, the examiner recognized this deficiency
in Nota and took Official notice that non-volatile memories were known and would have
been obvious to use where data was not desired to be lost during power interruption.
Appellants did not challenge the examiner’s Official notice. Therefore, we find the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness in supplying Nota’s service processor with a non-
volatile memory to be reasonable.
With regard to appellants’ second assertion, the examiner’s response is to
merely recite large portions of Nota, at pages 20-21 of the answer, without responding
to appellants’ concern that Nota does not store data needed for error analysis in the
power independent memory of the service processor. It appears that the examiner is
relying on column 2, lines 38 et seq. for this argued claim limitation. But that portion of
Nota makes it clear that any storage of data regarding detection of occurrence of a fault
in a processor is in a “main storage.” Such storage is not disclosed as occurring in a
service processor, as claimed. See Figure 1 of Nota wherein the service processor 30
is shown separate and distinct from the main storage. Thus, the instant claimed subject
matter is not taught or suggested by Nota.
The examiner’s view is that Nota indicates, at column 7, lines 20 et seq., that the
function of service processor 30 may be provided in the real processors 1 and 2, without
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007