Appeal No. 2006-1937
Application No. 10/215,651
The examiner relies on the following references:
Jackson et al. (Jackson) 6,452,809 Sep. 17, 2002
(filed Nov. 10, 2000)
Guyer et al. (Guyer) 6,583,989 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed Dec. 22, 2000)
Bottom et al. (Bottom) 2002/0124114 Sep. 05, 2002
(eff. filing date Mar. 05, 2001)
Claims 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by Guyer.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 18-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner offers Bottom and Guyer with regard to claims 1-6 and 9-11, while
offering Jackson and Guyer with regard to claims 18-27.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
An anticipatory reference is one that describes all of the elements of the claimed
invention so as to have placed a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Independent claims 12 and 17 each requires that the blade service controller be “operable
to transmit a signal to the service processor to identify the server blade as a particular one of a
predetermined set of server blade types.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007