Appeal No. 1999-2255
Application No. 08/885,393
Appellants present no separate arguments for independent claim 31, but submit
that the claim is allowable due to its “dependence” from claim 14 or 27. (Brief at 13.) In
fact, the claim is significantly broader in scope than appellants’ model claim 1, and thus
not commensurate with the arguments presented for the independent claims. General
manager 31 in server 12 receives and processes an interrogation from client computer
14, and generates an identification corresponding to the latest computer program in
response to the interrogation. See Cole at col. 3, ll. 14-39. We sustain the section 102
rejection of claim 31.
In response to the rejection of claims 5, 8, 12, 18, 21, 25, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cole and Ottman, appellants rely on the
arguments advanced against the section 102 rejection applied to the independent
claims. Because all limitations of respective claims 5, 8, 12, 18, 21, and 25 (depending
from claim 1 or 14) have not been shown to be disclosed or suggested by the
references -- Ottman does not remedy the deficiencies of the Cole reference -- we do
not sustain the section 103 rejection of claims 5, 8, 12, 18, 21, or 25.
Claim 28, depending from claim 27, is also subject to the section 103 rejection.
Because: (1) appellants have advanced no arguments specific to claim 28; (2) we have
sustained the rejection of base claim 27; and (3) the examiner has set out a reasonable
prima facie case for obviousness with respect to claim 28 -- i.e., that the combination of
Cole and Ottman would have suggested updating operating systems as recited -- we
sustain the rejection of the claim.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007