Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 9
Application No. 08/217,063
Here, although the examiner rejects claims 1-7, the claimed
limitation of a “software means” cited by the examiner appears
only in claim 1. As explained regarding the indefiniteness
rejection of claim 1, moreover, we agree with the appellant that
“the computer-software combination,” (Reply Br. at 2), provides
the claimed functions of the software means. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-7 as non-enabled.
III. Obviousness Rejection
We address the three points of contention between the
examiner and appellant. First, the examiner asserts, "[w]ith
respect to claim 1, Kirouac taught the invention substantially as
claimed including the personal computer (PC) comprising . . .
means for detecting when the server obtains access to updated
versions of said computer programs (col.l, [sic] lines 60-66),
and upon detection receiving said updates (col.2, lines 4-16)."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellant argues, "claim 1 recites
that the ‘software means’ detects when a SERVER obtains updated
programs. This ‘software means’ resides on, a PC (see
preamble)." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007