Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Burns.
We incorporate the examiner’s discussion of the teachings of Burns from the
rejection with the exclusion of the finding that columns 5 and 6 of Burns teaches the use
of an internet address. (See answer at pages 3-4.) From our review of the teachings of
Burns, we find that Burns teaches at column 34, lines 50-54,
[i]f implemented in software, the diagnostics of the present invention may
be stored in any computer readable memory such as on a magnetic disk,
a laser disk, or other storage medium, in a RAM, ROM, EPROM, etc. of a
computer, and the like. Likewise, this software may be delivered to a user
or a device via any known or desired delivery method including, for
example, over a communication channel such as a telephone line, the
internet, etc. [Emphasis added.]
While neither the examiner nor appellant mentions this discussion and
suggestion of the use of “the internet,” we find that this teaching is a clear suggestion
that the “software may be delivered to a user or a device via any known or desired
delivery method including, for example, over a communication channel such as a
telephone line, the internet” [our emphasis]. We find this direct teaching of the use of
the internet as a communication medium which we find to be a strong suggestion to use
the internet as a means for the process device to transmit its data to the remainder of
the process control system. For the device of system and sub components of the
system to receive software via the internet each of the units would have been required
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007