Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 13
Application No. 08/217,063
upgrading software used in remote computer systems 12 from a
central computer system 14.” We do not understand the examiner’s
assertion about the multiple computers being “merely multiple
implementations of Kirouac. . . .” (Examiner’s Answer at 9.)
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 3-6 as obvious.
Third, the examiner asserts, “Molnar taught . . . the steps
of . . . b] downloading from the remote computer installation
software (co1.16, lines 1-3) and software to be installed
(co1.15, lines 67-68); and c] running the installation software,
which installs the software (co1.16, lines 1-3).” (Examiner’s
Answer at 6.) Observing that claim 7 recites “i) installation
software; ii) software to be installed; c) running the
installation software, which installs the software, without
significant input from a user,” (Appeal Br. at 11), the appellant
argues, “[t]he bold recitations are absent from Molnar.” (Id.)
“[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction. . . .” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007