Appeal No. 1999-2255
Application No. 08/885,393
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ottman et al. (Ottman) 5,142,680 Aug. 25, 1992
Cole et al. (Cole) 5,752,042 May 12, 1998
(filed Jun. 7, 1996)
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22-24, 26, 27, and 29-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Cole.1
Claims 5, 8, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cole and Ottman.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 that was set forth in the Final Rejection has
been withdrawn by the examiner.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Dec. 18, 1998) and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed Mar. 15, 1999) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the
Brief (filed Mar. 2, 1999) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
Appellants provide reasons in the Brief why the subject matter of independent
claim 1 is believed to be not anticipated by the Cole reference. Appellants argue that
“Cole does not disclose any program other than an operating system which is run when
the local computer is started up.” (Brief at 6.) The examiner responds (Answer at 3)
1 According to the Examiner’s Answer, claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are both anticipated by Cole and
“objected to” but deemed allowable if rewritten in independent form. We will assume that the claims stand
rejected.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007