Appeal No. 1998-0946
Application No. 08/365,269
providing the results of the requested service over the
computer network back to the customer at the remote location
interface.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Kirouac et al. (Kirouac) 5,155,847 Oct.
13, 1992
Cox et al. (Cox) 5,361,358 Nov. 1,
1994
Claims 1 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Kirouac in view of Cox.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with
appellants’ grouping of the claims at page 6 of the brief, all
claims stand or fall together.
We reverse.
Taking claim 1 as exemplary, Kirouac clearly teaches a
method of applying service to a computer program that is to be
executed at a remote location connected to a central computer
site of a computer network. The customer requests a computer
program service and the request is provided over the computer
network to a “service facility” at the central computer site.
That request is an update of software. The components of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007