Appeal No. 1997-4129
Application 08/237,988
Appellants argue that Peterson does not disclose or
suggest appending or otherwise associating capability
information with a control program to be downloaded to a
slave device and that Peterson's capability information is
not the same thing as the claimed capability information
(RBr5-6).
It is true that Peterson does not disclose downloading
programs to a slave device and that Peterson's "capability
lists" (defined as a "list of objects and the operations
allowed on those objects") are the objects and operations to
which the program has access, not functions performed by a
slave device. Nevertheless, Peterson discloses that the
capability list is inseparably associated with the program
and that principle is capable of broad application. In our
opinion, one of ordinary skill in the computer art would
have been motivated to inseparably associate the
configuration information in Hughes with the load modules
because the configuration information refers only to the
load modules. Thus, Peterson is considered to additionally
support the obviousness rejection.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007