Appeal No. 1997-4129
Application 08/237,988
(the "predefined portion of the control program") for use in
sending the relevant load modules to the terminals.
Since claim 8 is considered unpatentable over Hughes,
independent claim 7 from which it depends is also considered
unpatentable thereover. Further, the step of "inseparably
associating the capability information with the control
program" in claim 7 is broad enough to read on the fact that
the configuration information ("capability information") in
Hughes is related to or associated only with the load
modules and not some other programs. As already discussed,
"inseparably associating" includes storing the capability
information and the control software as separate files in a
database of the master device (specification, pages 8-9).
For the reasons stated, we conclude there is sufficient
evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 1, 4, 7, and 8. We next look to Appellants'
arguments.
Appellants argue that before one can say it would have
been obvious to append configuration data to a control
program, it is first necessary to identify the control
program. Appellants argue that they disclose a separate
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007