Appeal No. 2004-0935
Application No. 09/189,559
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stupek in view of
Burns.
Claims 2 through 4, 19 through 21, 44 and 55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stupek in
view of Burns and Shipley.
Claims 56 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stupek in view of Burns and Gross.
Claims 9 through 13, 26 through 30, 53 and 54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stupek in
view of Burns and Choye.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 28) and the
answer (paper number 29) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 65.
Appellants argue (brief, page 5) that “even if the
combination were made, the result would not read on this group of
claims.”
We agree. Stupek discloses upgrading an earlier version of
a computer resource with a later version of the computer resource
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007