Appeal No. 2005-1270 13
Application No. 09/798,169
The examiner recognized that Faulk is silent as to firmware, but takes Official
notice that firmware instructions were well known, concluding that it would have been
obvious to implement Faulk’s instructions in firmware in order to have the programming
“be a permanent part of the computing device” (answer-page 16).
For their part, appellants do not challenge the examiner’s Official notice anent the
firmware. In fact, appellants’ only argument is that Faulk does not teach the claimed
“service processor,” because a system cannot be a “service processor” and the
examiner’s position would interpret the combination of error log 12 and processor 11,
viz., a “system,” to be the claimed service processor.
For the reasons supra, anent the Houston reference, we agree with the examiner
in interpreting the term, “service processor,” broadly. Since we find no problem in
interpreting the combination of Faulk’s processor 11 and error log 12, as a “service
processor,” in view of the broad nature of the instant claims, the non-volatile, i.e.,
“power independent,” memory of error log 12 is included within that “service processor.”
Moreover, while appellants offer definitions for the term “processor,” and contend that
Faulk 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
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007