Appeal No. 1999-2375
Application No. 08/892,822
claim 15, we similarly sustain the examiner's rejection of dependent claim 15. As
discussed above, we find no support in the language of claims 1, 11 and 15 for the
difference in motivation in the prior art for the split in the BIOS. Therefore, this argument is
not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 18, appellants argue that the theory of writing to
and storing the decompressed BIOS to a different location than that of the storage of the
compressed BIOS effects the speed and swiftness of operation. (See brief at page 7.)
But appellants do not provide specific argument to distinguish this from the prior art.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. We note that independent claim 18 contains
similar language with respect to plural portions of the BIOS as discussed above regarding
independent claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 18.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007