Appeal No. 1999-2255
Application No. 08/885,393
client is requested to re-boot, and the operating system installs the code updates during
the re-boot.
Thus, update manager 32 does not “interrogate” an identifier program on the
server and “determine” if the identification of the latest computer program corresponds
to the current program, as required by instant claim 1. In Cole’s arrangement, the client
sends information to the server and recognizer programs are loaded from the server to
determine whether programs on the client should be updated. Update manager 32 of
Cole does not meet all the requirements of the “startup program” of instant claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 1,
nor of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13 depending therefrom.
Appellants do not point to any language in instant claims 14 and 27 that is
deemed to distinguish over Cole. Appellants allege that the claims “recite essentially
the same operations set forth in claim 1.” (Brief at 12.) Nor do appellants point out
particular limitations of claims 14 and 27 in the amplifying arguments presented on
pages 13 through 17 of the Brief.
Method claim 14 recites “providing a startup program.” Unlike claim 1, claim 14
does not limit the “startup program” as configured to run “when the local computer is
started up.” Claim 14 does, however, require that the startup program is configured to
interrogate the identifier program, “determine if the identification corresponds to the
current program,” and to run the updater program if the current program fails to
correspond to the latest program.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007