Appeal No. 1997-3425 Page 11
Application No. 08/087,824
is well-established in the art.” (Supplemental Examiner’s
Answer at 1.) The examiner argues, “the s:\ shared drive
letter and directory path clearly distinguish a particular
data processing system from among a plurality of data
processing systems ....” (Id. at 2.)
The appellants make the following reply.
Clearly, the drive letter and directory path do not
characterize a particular data processing system
from among a plurality of data processing systems.
Further, the volume label and volume serial number
cannot be said to characterize uniquely a data
processing system from among a plurality of data
processing systems as the volume label, or "volume
name" is a name for a disk or tape, usually assigned
by the user when the disk or tape is formatted.
(Reply Br. at 2.)
As mentioned regarding the interpretation of the claims,
claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-13 each specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations: “a directory ... listing each
alternate version of said selected software application
contained therein and a unique identification of each data
processing system among said plurality of data processing
systems which has utilized each of said alternate versions of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007