Appeal No. 2002-2040
Application No. 09/160,490
file, and a computer memory having a registration file, comparing
the registration file to the release file, and having a user
interface which allows a user to select at least one application
for upgrading. (Column 1, lines 24-50). The notification occurs
on the user interface, whose location is not specified as being
located remotely on a network. Thus, the examiner’s
characterization that Rowley discloses a server-client
relationship, but not that the end-user is notified of options via
a network (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines 18-19) is accurate.
The examiner does not rely on Rowley for this feature, but on the
combination of Rowley with Traversat.
The appellant urges that Traversat neither teaches nor
suggests notifying the end-user, in that the end-user is a user of
equipment and the client of Traversat is a computer. (Appeal
Brief, page 6, last paragraph). As we have discussed above, the
claims do not require that the end-user be a particular unique
individual. Traversat teaches centrally administering the update
procedure over a network (column 6, lines 19-31). Specific
teaching of update notification is described at column 13, lines
54-65. We therefore disagree that Traversat fails to teach end-
user notification over a network.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007