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. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007