Appeal No. 96-0651
Application No. 08/087,164
column 3, lines 41-45 of Herh], we find absolutely no
suggestion within the four corners of Herh that the local
computer serves the same or similar functions as recited in
the instant claims. The examiner takes the position that it
would have been equally obvious to have a local computer
external to the modem or a computer [e.g., the microprocessor
14 or a plurality of microprocessors suggested by Herh] within
the modem. However,
if the “local computer” could, somehow, be considered the
internal processor 14 of Herh, there would appear to be no
need for the claimed “packets.” Ergo, Herh provides no
teaching or suggestion of the claimed packets. Further, as
pointed out by appellants [brief - page 6], claim 1 provides
for the local computer to initiate the telephone call for
downloading the updated operating code while Herh apparently
waits for such a call from the remote computer [in response to
a flag being set].
With such substantial differences between the claimed
invention [claim 1] and that taught by Herh, it is difficult
to see how or why an artisan would have been motivated to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007