Appeal No. 1999-2375
Application No. 08/892,822
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Apr. 26, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 18, filed Mar. 26, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 20, filed Jun. 28, 1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the time savings and cost savings achieved by the “uniquely
packed and handled BIOS” by transfer of system control is significant and speaks to the
strength of the invention. (See brief at page 4.) We find no support in the language of
independent claim 1 to support this argument. Appellants argue that the claims were
amended to provide “functional organization” and “prescribed functions.” (See brief at
page 4.) We find no specific details in the language of independent claim 1 to identify the
specific function or their role in the operation. Appellants further argue that the process
provides for decompression only when space is available. (See brief at page 4.) Again,
we find no support in the language of claim 1 for this argument. Appellants argue at pages
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007