Appeal No. 1999-2255
Application No. 08/885,393
In view of these requirements of claim 14, we cannot agree that Cole anticipates
the claim. We have considered the examiner’s position, set forth at page 9 of the Final
Rejection and page 3 of the Answer. However, as we have previously noted, we
disagree that update manager 32 (Fig. 2) “determine[s] if the identification corresponds
to the current program,” as set forth in claim 14.
We therefore do not sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 14, nor that of
depending claims 15-17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26.
With respect to instant claim 27, “interrogating,” “determining,” and “transferring”
code segments as claimed are found in general manager 31 in server 12 (Fig. 2) of
Cole. Col. 3, ll. 14-39. Appellants’ arguments at pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, purported
to be applicable to claim 27, are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim
27 says nothing about a “startup” program. Operation of general manager 31 is
“automatic” at least subsequent to control to the program being transferred by a user
invoking update manager 32 -- even assuming the word “automatically” in the preamble
of claim 27 limits the scope of the claim.
We therefore are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s finding of anticipation
with respect to claim 27. We sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 27, and also the
rejection of dependent claims 29 and 30. Appellants have not separately argued the
claims depending from 27; the claims fall with the base claim. See 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007