Appeal No. 2000-1260
Application 08/518,852
of the Brief. Appellants further argue that it is “[t]he
Examiner’s position that this difference would be obvious because
it would ‘allow booting of the system when the user does not know
the specific manual indicia mentioned by Bertram cols. 7-8.’
(Examiner’s Action, October 16, 1996, p. 2.)” See page 15 lines
10-13 of the Brief.
Appellants then argue that “the Garner reference makes it
particularly clear that it is concerned ‘with dynamically
configuring the presence or absence of an external storage
device.’ (Garner 3:43-45.)” See page 13 lines 12-14 of the
Brief. Specifically, Appellants argue, with regards to column 3
lines 3-12 of Garner, that,
[t]his cited portion addresses determining peripheral
configuration (i.e., which devices are installed) and
storing information related to changes in the
configuration, which is performed without user
interaction. The determining of peripheral
configuration indicates which devices are currently
installed so that the computer system can determine
where it is located (e.g., home or office).
Appellants’ claims, in contrast, are directed to
‘configuring’ a computer system (e.g., an operating
system), which is the actual process of modifying the
system in accordance with configuration data.
See page 14 lines 9-16 of the Brief.
On page 2, lines 29-30 of the Answer, the Examiner sets
forth the rejection of Appellants’ claims 26 and 37 as being
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007