Appeal No. 1999-0353
Application No. 08/368,291
Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Herh in view
of Izumi and Tjahjadi.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 but we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
At pages 4-11 of the answer, the examiner spells out, in great detail, how the
references are being applied to the instant claims.
With regard to claim 6, the examiner notes that the primary reference to Herh
lacks a specific teaching of 1. a remote computer; 2. checking validity of data before
replacing existing operating code in memory; and 3. the new codes transmitted in
packets. However, the examiner explains his conclusion of obviousness of the claimed
subject matter by noting that while Herh does not specifically recite a remote computer, it
would have been obvious to skilled artisans that the remote DTE (Data Terminal
Equipment) may be a computer “since the modem 10 has a DTE interface 48 which
connects to a local computer terminal…and a telephone line interface connected to the
remote DTE having a modem which can be a [sic] computer” [answer-page 6]. The
examiner also cites Izumi for the teaching of a host computer sending new programs to a
terminal via a telephone line.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007