Appeal No. 1998-0946
Application No. 08/365,269
Cox with Kirouac because the placement of these teaching of
Cox “into the networked remote-central computer environment of
Kirouac would successfully allow a user to interactively
update applications on remote computers over a computer
network using knowledge generally available in the art”
[answer-page 6].
While appellants argue that Cox is not combinable with
Kirouac because Cox is concerned not with application updates
but, rather, with permitting an application on a first
operating system in a machine to run under another operating
system on the same machine, we do not think Cox is so far
removed from the subject matter of Kirouac so as to make them
non-combinable. They both relate to updates of applications,
generally speaking, and the artisan skilled in this art would
have been expected to be familiar with the systems of both
Kirouac and Cox. The problem, in our view, is that even if
combined, the claimed subject matter is not reached.
One may consider, as the examiner apparently did, the
claimed phrase, “optional service incorporation instructions,”
to be so broad as to read on the buttons 300, 302, 304, 306
and 308 of Cox since these buttons clearly give the user
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007