Appeal No. 1998-0948
Application No. 08/198,343
teaches or fairly suggest the copying of the software from a second location to the main
location and then booting from the main location to remedy the above noted deficiency in
Arnold. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2, 11, 24, 29 and 31 and their
dependent claims 6, 23, 25-28, 30 and 32.
With respect to claim 15, appellant argues that Arnold does not disclose the steps
as recited in the language of claim 15. (See reply brief at page 8.) The examiner has
proffered only a brief discussion of claim 15 in the combination of Calle and Arnold and
only discusses Arnold with respect to the warm boot. (See answer at page 7 and Arnold at
columns 18 and 19.) As such, we find no clear support for the examiner's conclusion that
Arnold teaches or suggests appellant's claimed invention. Therefore, we find that the
examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 15. Moreover, the examiner generally relies upon Bentley to teach
indication to the user, but the examiner has not applied Bentley against claim 15.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 24-28 and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3-5,
7-13 and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 2, 6, 11, 15 and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007