Appeal No. 2000-1755
Application No. 08/828,014
processor CPRd and, thereafter, sends IPL programs and data from the
external devices FM, DK, and MT to the call processor CPRd.
(3) The call processor CPRd runs the boot program to receive the IPL
data from the management processor MPR and stores the received data
in the external device FM.
(4) During the IPL process, the management processor MPR must
continue to communicate with the call processors CPRa to CPRc.
Since the boot program is transferred, it cannot be "inherently" stored in the memory in
the client system as the examiner maintains. Therefore, the examiner has not provided
a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kishimoto, which
teaches the transfer of a nonresident operating system, with the teachings of Kannan,
which teaches user selection in the dual boot system in the non-networked/resident
system.
Additionally, the examiner maintains that "Kannan's teaching is equivalent to the
present invention, whereas the present invention allows a user to select to run an
operating system either from a server or from the local hard file." (See brief at page
10.) (Emphasis added.) From our understanding of the claimed invention, it is not the
user that selects the operating system, but the control system on the network that
selects and transfers the bootstrap code to cause the client to load the operating
system code stored on the local mass storage device. Since we find that the examiner
has not provided a convincing line of reasoning for combining the teachings of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007