Appeal No. 2006-1998
Application No. 10/215,648
Appellants argue that Jackson does not teach the claimed “removably insertable
dividing member…”
We agree with the examiner.
The replaceable fan trays 140 in Jackson, although used to cool the engine blades
132 in chassis assembly 128, clearly act to divide the different assemblies of engine
blades 132. See Figure 2 of Jackson. The carrier, cabinet 110 in Jackson, has a plurality
of receiving locations and each is configured to removably receive a plurality of engine
blades that comprise processing units (column 7, lines 20-21, of Jackson). Since the
plurality of fan trays 140 are also removably inserted (column 7, line 67, of Jackson), and
Figure 2 of Jackson shows these fan trays as being between the different assemblies of
engine blades 132, it is clear to us that Jackson’s fan tray 140 is a “removably insertable
dividing member which, when received, is operable to divide the receiving location into a
plurality of sub-locations, each operable to receive at least one information processing
module,” as claimed.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 14, 15, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. §102 (e), and, based on appellants’ grouping of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16,
18-25, 31, and 32, at the top of page 9 of the principal brief, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 13-16, 18-25, 31, and 32 under §102 (e).
With regard to claims 3, 6, and 17, claims 3 and 17 require that each receiving
location may receive processing modules with a height h when a dividing member is
present and may receive processing modules of a height approximately 2h when no
dividing member is present. Claim 6 requires that each receiving location may receive a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007