Appeal 2007-1968
Application 10/400,856
Paragraph 4 of the prior art discussion at Specification page 1
indicates that prior art system management processors were known to exist
which is also confirmed at paragraph 7 at Specification, page 2. These are
considered different physical processor management types to the extent
recited in dependent claim 2 argued before us. Moreover, the field
replaceable capability of prior art cells discussed in paragraph 7 indicates the
art recognizes that the field programmable gate array type of architecture
argued before us in dependent claim 10 was also known in the art.
At the bottom of page 9 of the Answer where the Examiner responds
to Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner refers to Appellant’s
arguments beginning at page 5 through 8 of the Brief alleging that Smith
fails to disclose “boot-time rendezvous and partitioning of a computer
system heterogeneous at the instruction set architecture level.” The
Examiner appears to agree with this observation but also further adds that
the claims do not recite this feature. Representative independent claim 1, for
example, merely recites operations at system startup. This is not necessarily
per se boot-time partitioning to the extent argued in the noted pages in the
Brief. Even so, it is further noted that paragraph 10 at Specification, page 2,
indicates that compatibility determinations were made in the prior art at
system boot-time even at the operating system level. Therefore, Appellant’s
arguments are not well taken, including the observation that Smith merely
operates at different operating system levels rather than at boot-time levels.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013