Appeal 2007-0210
Application 10/167,359
Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants have contend that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20
and 26-49 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Reviewing the findings of facts cited
above, we find an essential limitation of the claim was not disclosed in the
cited prior art. The claim requires an update manager, accessible by a
processor, adapted to receive a transfer of a update, and adapted to receive a
listing identifying all the data packets of the update prior to the transfer.
(Finding of Fact #2). Examiner has cited art, notably Doshi, which contains
the packet list, but on the sending side. Examiner has also noted that the
reference teaches that a second list of received packets is accumulated on the
receiving side and sent back to the transmitting side, but that operation does
not take place prior to the sending of the update, in accordance with the
common meaning of the terms.
As this issue establishes the error of the rejection, the other issues
raised by Appellants need not be addressed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 20 and 26-49 over the cited art.
The rejection of those claims is reversed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013