Ex Parte KISACANIN - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-1827                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 09/467,396                                                  

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to web design of software for            
          keep-alive boards.  An understanding of the invention can be                
          derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced            
          as follows:                                                                 
               1.  A method for electronically providing customized                   
          software to a customer, comprising the steps of:                            
               receiving a customer specification through a web interface;            
               automatically creating customer compatible software that               
          meets the customer specification; and                                       
               electronically providing the customer compatible software to           
          the customer, wherein the customer compatible software is a                 
          customer compatible executable that is compiled from pre-existing           
          source code that includes inserted customer specific messages               
          provided by the customer in the customer specification.                     
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
               Kohl                6,163,878           Dec. 19, 2000                  
                         (filed Mar. 21, 1998)                                        
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
          unpatentable over Kohl.                                                     
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,             
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed            
          March 4, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007