Appeal No. 95-4184
Application 07/813,080
Claims 19-23 and 27-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Robert or Dunham in view of
Calvert and what the examiner considers to be admitted prior
art.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Robert or Dunham in view of Calvert and
Wilson.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper
No. 14) for appellant's position.
OPINION
We agree with the examiner that Robert and Dunham
disclose steps (a) through (e) of claims 19 and 37, but do not
disclose step (f), the automatic ordering of additional
necessary hardware required by the activation of the optional
feature. The "optional feature" corresponds to a particular
software program that the user wants to run in Robert and
Dunham.
In Robert (col. 3, lines 41-47):
When a user wishes to use a licensed program 14, a
GRANT LICENSE request message is generated which requests
information as to the licensing status of the licensed
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007