Appeal No. 1999-1563
Application 08/509,619
card can be added to Lemon and that other pieces are provided
by others, while there is no teaching regarding what aspects
of the Lemon mechanism are specifically designed not to be
changed. In regard to column 16, lines 50-54, of Lemon,
Appellants argue that this is a mere statement of goals,
indicating that part of a boot framework should be provided to
the customer and part of the boot framework should be capable
of being extended, but there is no teaching that either of
these parts are specifically designed not to be changed. In
regard to column 20, lines 15-29, of Lemon, Appellants argue
that this section of the reference points out that
modification of extensible function may occur at two different
times in the customization process, but that there is no
mention of what functions are not changed.
Appellants then point to the Examiner's reliance on11
certain explanatory remarks made by Appellants during
prosecution, taken in conjunction with column 4, lines 50-55
of Lemon. Appellants acknowledge their statement defining
11Brief, page 7.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007