Appeal No. 1998-0948
Application No. 08/198,343
language of claim 1 with respect to the operating system. Appellant argues that the utilities
are a separate set of programs to configure the computer to operate with the I/O devices.
We agree with appellant in this aspect and note that the computer would
be operating with the I/O devices. However, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellant argues that Calle is concerned with hardware-based problems and the
present invention is concerned with software problems. While we agree with appellant that
Calle explicitly discusses the manipulation of hardware to attempt to get the system to
startup, appellant does not address the suggestion which Calle would have made to skilled
artisans that other fixes may be needed to start up the computer. For example, the skilled
artisan would have been motivated merely to restart the computer in case the software did
not load properly because of a glitch or erroneous flag or state. Appellant argues the Calle
does not disclose a means for attempting to fix a detected software problem. We
disagree with appellant. (See reply brief at page 7.) Appellant appears to be arguing the
bodily incorporation of the teachings of Calle into Arnold rather than the suggestion to
skilled artisans of fixing problems which occur during startup. Therefore, this argument is
not persuasive. With respect to claim 19, the language of claim 19 does not require the
booting of the computer. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007