Appeal No. 1999-2255
Application No. 08/885,393
Moreover, the rejection (Final Rejection at 6) appears to equate most of the
functions associated with the “startup” program of claim 1 with Cole’s “update manager”
32, found on client computer 14 (Fig. 2).
The determination of whether the programs necessary in managing the general
updating of the client are outdated is made by general manager 31 on selection server
12 (col. 3, ll. 19-22). For the general updating itself, described at column 3, line 56 et
seq. of the reference and further shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), selection update
program 30 (on selection server 12) determines which code updates are consistent with
the basic system information of the client. For each code update that is indicated,
selection update program 30 sends to the client 14 the FTP addressing information of a
corresponding “recognizer” program (e.g. 40 and 42 on content server 17). Client 14
then downloads the recognizer programs. Client 14 executes each recognizer program
(e.g., 40 and 42) to assist the server in determining whether the corresponding code
update is appropriate for client 14. The client subsequently sends to selection server
12 a list of the code updates which are appropriate for the client.
Based on the information gathered by the recognizer programs, the server
determines the level of criticality of the respective code updates and builds a selection
form for display at the client. The user at client 14 makes selections from the display
with respect to code updates that are to be ordered. The server 12 in response sends
to client 14 the FTP addressing information for the selected code updates. Download
routine 39 of the client downloads the code updates from the content server 17. The
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007