Appeal No. 2006-0570 2
Application No. 09/706,960
an interface to a network;
a first operational element to perform one or more tasks in the system;
a storage element containing a flag to indicate if a fault has occurred with the first
operational element; and
a backup device to enable access of the network through the interface in response
to the flag indicating failure of the first operational element.
The examiner relies on the following references:
5713024 HALLADAY 1-1998
5627964 REYNOLDS ET AL. 5-1997
6381694 YEN 4-2002
4972316 DIXON ET AL. 11-1990
Stevens, “Introduction”, TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The Protocols, Addison-
Wesley, 1994, pg. 1
Claims 1-11, 14, 20, 28, and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Halladay and Reynolds with regard to claims
1, 2, 9-11, 30, and 31, adding Stevens with regard to claims 3-7 and 32, but adding Yen
with regard to claim 8. With regard to claims 14 and 20, the examiner offers Halladay and
Stevens. The examiner offers Halladay, Dixon and Reynolds with regard to claims 28 and
33.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to claims 1, 2, 9-11, 30, and 31, the examiner points out that Halladay
discloses the claimed subject matter but for a storage element containing a flag to indicate
if a fault has occurred with the first operational element. However, the examiner cites
Reynolds for the proposition that it was well known to use a flag for indicating a fault so as
to initiate a recovery program, citing column 6, lines 20 of Reynolds. According to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007