Appeal No. 2000-1755
Application No. 08/828,014
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 17, filed Jan. 19, 2000) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the system of Kishimoto does not teach or fairly suggest
the "transferring bootstrap code to the client system to cause the client system to load
operating system code from a mass storage device of the client system, the operating
system code being present on the mass storage device at the time when the initial
program load request was issued from the client system onto the network" as recited in
the language of independent claim 1. (See brief at pages 3-4.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue that the teachings of Kannan with respect to having a
dual boot system entirely local without a client-network relationship would not disclose
or fairly suggest the above claimed functionality. We agree with appellants.
At page 10 of the answer, the examiner maintains that:
CPRd (client) must have a storage medium in order to receive the IPL
program transferred from the MPR (see fig 1 element FM). Furthermore,
a computer system needs an operating system in order to process
instructions such as allocation and usage of hardware resources. For this
reason the operating system is already installed in the client systems.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007