Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980
(answer, pages 3 and 4) that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the
teachings of Baldwin with the teachings of Brent for the advantage of “automatic load balancing
among plural processors, automatic recovery from any failing processor, and automatic
reconfiguration for the subsystem containing the processors without intervention from the
operating system as taught by Brent (col. 1, lines 18-24)” because Baldwin only uses a single
graphics processor. If Baldwin’s single graphics processor fails, then the system will cease to
function for lack of another graphics processor to turn to for help (brief, page 15).
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35 is reversed for lack
of a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007