Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
Appellants argue (Br11, first full para.) that Andersen
does not disclose the following limitations in claim 13:
(1) "storing courses in a repository"; and (2) "responding
to a request for a course made on a workstation; delivering
said course to a server serving said workstation."
As to the limitation of "storing courses in a
repository," appellants argue (Br14, lines 7-12):
Andersen discloses at column 5, lines 53-56 that
the electronic memory at the processor station does not
have [the] capacity to store a single instructional
program. Thus, since Andersen could not store a single
instructional program, certainly Andersen could not
store a plurality of instructional programs.
As a consequence, Andersen does not disclose or
suggest storing courses in a repository.
The examiner responds (EA8): "Appellants['] point,
page 14, beginning [at] line 7 through line 10 of the Brief,
is not well taken in that no storage of a plurality of
courses at a workstation is seen anywhere in the instant
claim[] [13]."
Appellants argue that Andersen does not disclose the
claim language "storing courses in a repository."
Manifestly, the central computer in Andersen must inherently
have a repository for storing courses since courses are
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007