Appeal No. 1997-4220 Page 6
Application No. 08/394,659
arguments in this regard are directed to unclaimed features and
are, as such, not persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3,
4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
We reach the opposite result with regard to claims 5
through 7, 9 through 14 and 18. Each of independent claims 5,
9, 11 and 18 requires a determination of what “memory
transactions are effective to change the virtual memory from
its initial arrangement to its modified arrangement” and then
those memory transactions are transferred from the computer to
the portable information device where the information device
memory is updated using the memory transactions. While these
claims do not use the word “only” to modify the memory
modifications downloaded, it is clear that Yokozawa makes no
determination of what memory transactions are effective to
change the virtual memory from an initial arrangement to its
modified arrangement because, in Yokozawa, the entire program,
including modified and unmodified memory, is downloaded. Thus,
Yokozawa has no need to determine what memory transactions are
effective to change the virtual device memory from an initial
arrangement to a modified arrangement. We read the quoted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007