Appeal No. 1998-0948
Application No. 08/198,343
With respect to claims 8 and 9, appellant argues that Bentley does not disclose the
recording of events that occur during a failed startup. (See reply brief at page 8.) We
disagree with appellant. The examiner maintains that Bentley discloses the display in
both textual and graphical form information concerning the status of components and
requesting action by the operator. (See answer at page 11 and Bentley at columns 1-2.)
We agree with the examiner that Bentley would have suggested the recordation of
problems and/or status. Bentley further would have suggested the use of recordation of
problems and communication thereof in the evaluation of the operation and proposed
corrective action.
Appellant argues that none of the applied references are directed to the same
problem as the present invention and that none of the references anticipate or suggest the
invention recited in the claims. (See reply brief at pages 8-9.) We disagree with appellant
to the extent discussed above.
With respect to claims 2, 11 and 24, appellant argues that Arnold does not teach or
suggest that upon detection of a problem, the portion of the operating system that is in the
secondary area is loaded into the main area as claimed in claims 2, 11 and 24. (See
reply brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. Furthermore, we agree with appellant that
Arnold alone does not teach this copying with respect to claim 31.
Similarly, we find this limitation in claim 29, and we find that neither Bentley nor Calle
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007