Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
note Andersen et al., col. 6, lines 24-25 and the lange
[sic, language] 'when a particular processor station
requests a particular program ...' (emphasis added)."
The issue is more complicated than the examiner
appreciates and involves a matter of claim interpretation.
Andersen discloses downloading a program segment for
execution (col. 3, lines 65-66) from the cluster
subsystem 10 (corresponding to the claimed "server") to a
processor station 20 (corresponding to the claimed
"workstation") in response to a request for a particular
program from the processor (col. 6, lines 23-27). This
meets the claim language of "responding to a request for a
course made on a workstation"; note that this language does
not state what actions are taken in "responding."
The following clause of claim 13 recites "delivering
said course to a server serving the workstation."
Appellants interpret this clause as requiring delivering in
response to the request in the preceding clause, which
argument the examiner does not address. However, there is
no specific language in claim 13 to support appellants'
argument that "delivering" is done in response to the
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007