Appeal No. 1997-4220 Page 4
Application No. 08/394,659
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) but we will not sustain either the
rejection of claims 5 through 7, 9 and 11 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. 102(e) or the rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. 103.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 16,
independent claims 1 and 16, in our view, are broader in scope
than contended by appellants.
Throughout various sections of the brief and reply brief,
appellants argue that whereas the instant invention is
concerned with externally managing a virtual copy of a portable
device’s memory and downloading only memory modifications to
the portable device, Yokozawa teaches that the entire program
must be recompiled by the external computer and then the entire
program is downloaded to the memory of the portable device. We
agree with appellants that this, indeed, is the difference
between the instant disclosed invention and the disclosure of
Yokozawa. However, we find the language of instant independent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007