Appeal No. 2006-1707
Application No. 09/964,029
“not needed” group as shown by the description of the system administrator’s decisions
not to install or back out.
Turning now to the step recited in the last element of the claim, Appellants argue
that the relied on portion of Bartoletti does not disclose the step of “distributing the
needed vendor’s software patches to the client’s systems” (brief, page 11). The
Examiner points to various references made to “installing upgrades or patches” and
argues that getting patches from a centralized patch collector (Figure 2) and installing
them on the target system reads on the claimed “distributing the needed vendor’s
software patches to the client’s systems” (answer, pages 11-12).
We agree with the Examiner that determining which new patches are released
and installing them on the client’s system includes distributing the patches before they
can be installed. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Examiner (answer, page 12),
Figure 2 of Bartoletti shows a centralized patch collection service which actually
provides the needed patches to the systems configured to support the evaluation and
installation of the patches (page 7, paragraph 3). These systems would get their
patches from the centralized patch collectors which indicates that such patches are
“distributed” to the client’s systems.
Based on our findings above, we agree with the Examiner that Bartoletti prima
facie anticipates the claimed subject matter in the independent claim 6. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
CONCLUSION
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007