Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
courseware and [2] the authoring system distributed over the
workstation of the workstations, the servers, and the main
computer and [3] operable to transfer courses of the
courseware from the workstation to the repository . . . ."
Appellants also argue (Br12) that the combination of
Andersen and Abrahamson does not disclose the "distributed
delivery system."
The examiner stated that "Anderson [sic] lacks in [sic]
showing [of] a main computer repository for storing
courseware" (Paper No. 2, page 6), but that "[r]egarding a
main computer file repository, such would have been an
obvious economic expedient, as well as provide [sic] system
backup [to] reduce the need for repeating software in all of
the Anderson [sic] hubs" (Paper No. 2, pages 6-7). In our
opinion, the central computer in Andersen must inherently
have a repository for storing courses since courses are
downloaded from the central computer to the mass storage 14
of the cluster subsystem 10 over communication link 15
(col. 6, lines 41-49), but we agree with the examiner that
providing a central repository would have been obvious.
Appellants provide no explanation why providing a course
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007