Ex Parte WARD et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1695                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/971,386                                                  


               1. A method of deploying a workstation computer comprising             
          the steps of:                                                               
               connecting a dual port RF identification tag to a memory bus           
          of the computer to provide for electrical communication between             
          the RF identification tag and the computer;                                 
               storing user information in the dual port RF identification            
          tag using an RF port without unpacking and applying power to the            
          computer;                                                                   
               forwarding the computer to the end user workstation                    
          location; and                                                               
               downloading software and user data to the computer after               
          installing the computer hardware at the end user workstation                
          location to tailor the workstation.                                         
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Anders et al.             4,656,463                Apr.  7, 1987            
          (Anders)                                                                    
          Fuller et al.             5,302,947                Apr. 12, 1994            
          (Fuller)                                                                    
          Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (APA) specification, pages 1 and 2           
               Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being           
          unpatentable over Anders in view of the Admitted Prior Art (APA)            
          and Fuller.                                                                 
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejection,            
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed            
          October 13, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007