Appeal No. 96-2894
Application 08/742,974
deficiency, the rejection of claim 1 is reversed. The
rejection of dependent claims 2-8 is also reversed.
In addition, we note that the rejection of claims 1-8
must be reversed because neither Andersen nor Abrahamson
discloses the limitations in the "distributed delivery
system" subparagraph in claim 1. We find no discussion of
these specific limitations about searching the network and
transferring and retrieving courses in the examiner's
actions.
Claims 10-12
The rejection of independent claim 9 over Andersen has
been reversed. Abrahamson does not supply the deficiency as
to claim 9's limitation "to deliver a course from said at
least one workstation to said repository." Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 10-12 is reversed.
Claims 14-18
As to claims 14-18, appellants merely recite the
limitation of each claim and the advantage of the feature.
This does not constitute an argument as to the separate
patentability of the claims. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv)
- 17 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007