Ex Parte Wade - Page 2


                Appeal 2006-2705                                                                              
                Application 09/947,824                                                                        
                      1. A system for providing analysis information pertaining to a high                     
                priority machine check (HPMC), comprising:                                                    
                      a processor that is operable to invoke utility code when an HPMC is                     
                generated;                                                                                    
                      non-volatile memory for storing said utility code, said utility code                    
                comprising:                                                                                   
                             code for accessing data present in internal memory of said                       
                processor when said HPMC was generated; and                                                   
                             code for generating at least one explanatory sentence utilizing                  
                at least said data present in said internal memory.                                           
                      The following references are relied on by the Examiner:                                 
                McLaughlin   US 6,119,246   Sep. 12, 2000                                                     
                Linam   US 6,658,599 B1  Dec.   2, 2003                                                       
                                                             (filed Jun.  22, 2000)                           
                      All claims on appeal, claims 1 through 21, stand rejected under 35                      
                U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon                           
                McLaughlin in view of Linam.                                                                  
                      Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,                     
                reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s positions, and                 
                to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.                                                   
                                                 OPINION                                                      
                      For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as                             
                embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under                 
                35 U.S.C. § 103.  For each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 on appeal as                    
                well as the respective dependent claims, Appellant has presented arguments                    
                in the Brief and Reply Brief as to their corresponding features collectively.                 

                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013