Appeal No. 2001-0164
Application No. 08/885,379
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Bealkowski. See Examiner's Answer on
page 2, lines 18-19. To support the position that Bealkowski
discloses the limitation, "if all sources are checked and none
are both operational and has a valid boot format, having the CPU
repeat the aforementioned sequential search of the possible
operating system sources" in claim 1, the Examiner cites to
Figure 6B and column 11, lines 38-47. See Examiner's Answer on
1
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 24, 2000,
Paper No. 13. In response to the Examiner's Answer, Paper No.
14, mailed April 7, 2000, Appellants filed a Reply Brief on June
7, 2000, Paper No. 15. The Examiner mailed an office
communication on September 6, 2000, Paper No. 16, stating that
the reply brief has been considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007