Appeal 2007-1786
Application 10/121,365
1 ANALYSIS
2 We begin with the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
3 102(b) as being anticipated by Ishii. As Appellant has only argued claim 1,
4 we select claim 1 as representative of the group. From facts 3-7 we find that
5 Ishii describes a single central processing unit, and does not describe an
6 emergency control unit for controlling the emergency control means
7 independently from the central control unit, as recited in claim 1. In other
8 words, since Ishii only describes a single central processing unit, the
9 reference does not describe, expressly or inherently, a second control unit,
10 and therefore does not describe am emergency control unit separate from the
11 central control unit. In Ishii, there are two separate computing units 12, 13.
12 Upon failure of one of the computing units, as determined by the central
13 processing unit, the processing is shifted to the other computing unit. As
14 stated by the Examiner (Answer 3) the central processing unit of Ishii
15 functions as both a central control unit and an emergency control unit. If the
16 CPU of Ishii carries out both functions, it cannot be reasonably said that the
17 emergency control unit controls the emergency control means independently
18 from the central control unit. Accordingly, we are in agreement with
19 Appellant, for the reasons set forth in the Brief and Reply Brief (pp. 4-6) that
20 Ishii fails to anticipate claim 1. It follows that we cannot sustain the
21 anticipation rejection of claim 1-3, and 5.
22 We turn next to the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
23 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishii. We cannot sustain the rejection of
24 these claims because the Examiner has not explained, nor do we conclude
25 that the deficiencies of Ishii would have been obvious to an artisan.
26
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013