Appeal No. 1999-0080
Application No. 08/558,929
reference to teach or suggest an enabler file which can be updated. The examiner
further maintains that the “Sherer et al reference is designed to accommodate new
hardware features . . . Sherer and Arnold store information in files, they can update
programs for the variant architectures.” (See answer at page 12.) We disagree with the
examiner. In our view, Sherer discloses a system for variant architectures and not
necessarily for future/new hardware. Again, this appears to be speculation on the part of
the examiner.
Appellants argue “unexpected results,” but do not provide any evidence beyond
bare arguments. (See brief at pages 6-7.) Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Sherer is directed to memory minimization and system
efficiency rather than replacing an enabler routine. (See brief at page 8.) We agree with
appellants. In our view, neither Sherer nor Arnold teach or suggest the “said enabler file
being initially stored in a read-write memory device so that said enabler file may be
replaced with an updated enabler file when system changes are made in said computing
system” as recited in claim 21. Neither Sherer nor Arnold address that the enabler file
“may be replaced with an updated enabler file when system changes are made in said
computing system” as recited in the claim, and the examiner has not provided a motivation
for the replacement with an updated enabler file.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007