Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 12
Application No. 08/217,063
Second, the examiner asserts, “the multiple computers [of
claims 3-6] are merely multiple implementations [sic] of Kirouac.
. . .” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.) The appellant argues,
“[c]laim 3(a) recites that software masters are stored at
multiple computers. In contrast, Kirouac shows storage of
‘initial versions’ MPX at a single central computer. (Column 4,
lines 9 -19.)” (Appeal Br. at 9.)
Claims 3-6 require that multiple computers store computer
programs to be downloaded to other computers. “In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.”
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Here, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior art
itself would have suggested that multiple computers store
computer programs to be downloaded to other computers. Although
Kirouac discloses downloading computer programs to computers, the
programs are stored on only one computer. Specifically,
“[r]eferring to FIG. 1, a software support system 10 is shown for
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007