Appeal No. 2006-1757
Application No. 10/116,522
The examiner responds that Cepulis identifies and skips
faulty devices by only permitting access to those devices that
are listed as available in the logical resource map [answer, page
7]. In this regard, the examiner notes that Cepulis at block 216
indicates what devices are available -- and therefore, by
implication, what is not available [id.]. The examiner also notes
that although the logical resource map is cleared at step 202, it
is nevertheless repopulated based on the contents of the failed
device log 132 [id.]. Appellants respond that Cepulis' permitting
access to devices listed as available is opposite to the claimed
skipping step. Moreover, "logical devices listed as available,"
according to appellants, is opposite to the scanning step recited
in claim 1 [reply brief, page 2].
Regarding claims 8, 17, and 26, appellants argue that
Cepulis' non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) 130 that stores the failed
device log does not disclose an error register as claimed [brief,
pages 14 and 15]. Specifically, appellants contend that "NVRAM
is not known to use registers" [brief, page 15]. The examiner
responds that registers are intrinsic to NVRAM devices,
particularly the type of NVRAM that Cepulis uses (i.e., EEPROMs or
group of claims comprising claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-25, and 27 [brief, page 10].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007