Appeal No. 1999-0353
Application No. 08/368,291
transferring the updated operating code to the modem over the telephone line according
to a predetermined communications protocol (col. 3, lines 46-60; col. 4, lines 5-46; col. 5,
lines 15-20)” [answer-page 5]. The examiner specifically identified the claimed
conversion means as being disclosed at column 3, lines 2-8 of Herh. The examiner’s
explanation appears reasonable to us and appellants have not pointed to anything in Herh,
which would convince us of any error in the examiner’s position.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Turning now to claim 7, the examiner sets forth the reasoning behind the rejection
of this claim at pages 8-10 of the answer, noting that a remote computer and the
transmission of updated codes in packets, not specifically disclosed by Herh, have been
previously discussed with regard to claim 6. We agree that the same reasoning would
apply to claim 7. In addition, the examiner notes that Herh fails to teach the step of
creating packets of updated operating code in the remote location wherein the packets
have a packet identifier, a length indicator, a programming address and the read portion
of the updated operating code. However, the examiner uses the teaching of Tjahjadi to
show the obviousness of providing the claimed information in the packets and appellants
provide no argument regarding the specifics of the packet.
Appellants argue that whereas claim 7 relates to a system whereby updated
operating code is packetized and stored in a temporary storage in the modem prior to
storing the code in permanent storage, Herh teaches away from temporary storage and, in
fact, teaches overwriting of code as it is received. Again, we note that claim 7, like claim
6, does not preclude overwriting of code as it is received. In Herh, the integrity of the
download is validated before downloading and the download is monitored. If there is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007