Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
"request." Nor is there any specific requirement that the
steps take place in the exact order recited. The step of
"delivering said course" can be the downloading of
instruction programs from the central computer to the
cluster substation from where they are requested.
Inferential limitations are not to be read into the claims.
In re Priest, 582 F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978).
Appellants could have drafted claim 13 to recite that
delivering was done in response to the request. We find
that Andersen teaches "responding to a request for a course
made on a workstation; delivering said course to a server
serving said workstation."
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 13. We only address the
arguments made by appellants.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-8
Appellants argue that the combination of Andersen and
Abrahamson does not disclose the following limitations of
claim 1 (Br12, first para.) (numbers in brackets added):
"[1] the main computer including a repository for storing
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007