Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 8
Application No. 08/217,063
from a user” is broad, permitting little or no input from a user.
Although the limitation may be even broader than the appellant
intended, however, we do not view it as indefinite.
Sixth, the examiner asserts, “[w]ith respect to claim 7, it
is unclear what structure is used for ‘running the installation
software.’” (Examiner's Answer at 4.) Again, we recognize that
the claim is broad, permitting the claimed “local computer,” the
claimed “remote computer,” or both computers to run the claimed
“installation software.” Although the limitation may be even
broader than the appellant intended, however, we do not view it
as indefinite. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 7 as
indefinite.
II. Enablement Rejection
Observing that “[t]he claims set forth ‘software means for
detecting ... and, upon detection, requesting,’ (Examiner’s
Answer at 3), the examiner asserts, "appellant's claims suggest[]
that software means alone, without benefit of processing by
hardware, [is] capable of providing function." (Id. 10.) The
appellant argues that his “claims do not state this. EVERY CLAIM
recites a computer." (Reply Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007