Appeal No. 1999-0353
Application No. 08/368,291
26. We find no language in instant claim 6 that precludes the overwriting of code as it is
received. We also find no language in claim 6 that requires an integrity check of the
download “before” replacing the existing operating code, as argued by appellants. While
claim 1 required this “before” language, the examiner has allowed that claim. Nothing in
instant claim 6 distinguishes over the validity check disclosed by Herh and appellants
have pointed to no specific language in the claim that would distinguish over the validity
check of Herh.
Now, it is true that Herh does not specifically identify the downloaded
information as being in the form of “packets,” as claimed. The examiner recognizes this
and appellants do argue that Herh “does not teach checking validity of packets before
replacement of existing operating code” [principal brief-page 12, emphasis ours].
However, Herh does disclose, at column 3, lines 8, that one of the functions of the
modem’s microprocessor is “data formatting.” When taken in combination with the cited
teaching of Tjahjadi of transmitting information divided into packets wherein a check
sum is included to detect transmission errors, it would have been obvious to the artisan
that the upgrading information transmitted from the remote location in Herh may be in
the form of packets. The “data formatting” feature of the microprocessor in Herh’s
modem would be able to handle such information in packet form.
Appellants also argue, with regard to claim 6, that the examiner’s rejection failed
“to provide the protocol means and conversion means” [principal brief-page 16].
However, the examiner specifically identified these items in Herh in the stated rejection.
The claimed protocol means is identified as “(microprocessor 14 controls programs
stored in ROM 22 for steps 102-134 in Fig.2 as communications protocol) for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007