Appeal No. 2006-1937
Application No. 10/215,651
While the examiner indicates that Guyer describes such a feature at column 18, lines 41-
42, we disagree. The cited portion of Guyer describes a geography bus that assigns geographic
identifiers for each compute element in a computer system, enabling server management
software to determine the physical location of each device within the RAIC and to identify the
location of a failed compute element. The identification of the location of a server blade is not
the same as the identification of a “particular one of a predetermined set of server blade types,”
as claimed.
We also do not agree with the examiner’s explanation, at page 7 of the answer, that the
claim language “operable” is not a positive claim limitation and the device merely has to be
capable of performing the function so the examiner gives the phrase “little patentable weight.”
Each limitation of a claim must be given patentable weight. Moreover, the recitation in
the claim of an element being “operable” to do something is clearly a positive limitation since it
defines the function that the element performs or must be capable of performing. The service
management software in Guyer is described as determining the location of a device within the
RAIC and identifying the location of a failed compute element. Nowhere in Guyer is there a
suggestion of the software having the capability of identifying a particular one of a
predetermined set of server blades, as claimed. The examiner indicates, at page 7 of the answer,
that since Guyer teaches a blade service controller 125 of the server blade 29 with an assigned
geographic identifier, “that would surely be capable of transmitting a signal to a service
processor 67 to identify itself as being a particular one of a specific type of server blade.” This
unsupported conclusion by the examiner is mere speculation since there is no evidence in Guyer,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007