Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
The examiner further states (EA7-8): "However, as admitted
by Appellant, Anderson [sic] does show that programs are
transmitted over the network. Why such transmission is not
a 'distributed delivery' Appellant fails to point out."
The limitation to "a course delivery system distributed
over said at least one workstation, said servers, and said
main computer" is considered to broadly read on Andersen.
In Andersen, a plurality of instructional programs are
transferred from a central main frame computer
(corresponding to the claimed "main computer") to a mass
storage device 14 in a cluster subsystem 10 (corresponding
to the claimed "server") over a link 15 (col. 6,
lines 41-50) which maintains a number of entire
instructional programs in a high speed buffer 12 (col. 6,
lines 19-27) and segments of the program are transmitted to
a requesting processor station (corresponding to the claimed
"workstation") as needed (col. 5, lines 56-58). Since the
programs or parts of the programs reside at the central
computer, the cluster subsystem, and the processor, the
course delivery system is "distributed." Unlike claim 1,
there are no limitations that the distributed delivery
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007