Appeal 2007-1604
Application 09/966,064
Although Alcorn’s system utilizes a single operating system, we see
no reason why the system would not at least be capable of accommodating
multiple operating systems. In fact, installing multiple operating systems in
the same host computer and activating a desired operating system is well
known.5 In view of this conventional technique, we see no reason why the
skilled artisan would not provide such a capability in Alcorn’s system. At a
minimum, such a capability would provide the flexibility to select a desired
operating system, thus enabling operation that can employ the distinctive
features of the respective operating systems.
In any event, we agree with the Examiner that storing hardware
drivers for multiple operating systems in the ROM 14 of Alcorn would at
least reduce the need to transfer additional drivers to Alcorn’s system via an
external device. By providing access to the drivers from the same ROM
device, the drivers for the multiple operating systems would already be
stored in Alcorn’s system (i.e., in the ROM). Such an internal capability
would hardly compromise security of Alcorn’s system as Appellants seem to
suggest.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is
sustained.
Claims 16 and 17
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over APA in view of Alcorn and further
5 See Nakagiri, col. 1, ll. 45-49 (“A number of OSs [operating systems] for
controlling a host computer also exist nowadays. The same host computer is
controlled by different OSs or a plurality of OSs are installed in the same
host computer and one of the OSs is activated by switching them.”).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013