Appeal 2007-1968
Application 10/400,856
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, we
sustain the rejection of all the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
the Brief, we will treat independent claim 1 as representative of the
collective arguments apparently made with respect to independent claims 1,
7, and 16, but we will consider independent claim 20 separately because it
has been argued separately. Additional arguments have been presented only
as to dependent claims 2 and 10.
Page 13 of the disclosed invention sets forth the Abstract of the
invention which indicates that each cell of a heterogeneous computer system
may have multiple primary processors of the same Instruction Set
Architecture (ISA), but some cells may be different in that they would have
different ISA types. Beginning with Appellant’s consideration of the prior
art at the Specification at page 1, the discussion indicates that multiple
primary processors may have multiple instruction set types but does not
specifically recite that they may be different. Correspondingly, the
discussion at Specification page 2 generally indicates that multiple primary
processors may have multiple operating systems of different types. In
contrast, the subject matter of the independent claims on appeal merely
recites that the first cell may have a first instruction set type architecture
whereas the second cell is stated to cite a second instruction set architecture
type. These claims do not require that the first and second instruction set
types be different from each other.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013