Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
profile images stored in a ROM. Particularly, at pages 11 and 13
of the Appeal Brief, Appellant states the following:
[T]he Appellant believes that the Examiner is
misconstruing the sections of the Kamper reference that
mention configuring a “plurality of servers” as somehow
necessarily disclosing the storage of a “plurality of
server configuration profile images,” as recited in
independent claim 1. This innovation, however, is
clearly not present in the Kamper reference.
… On the contrary, the Appellant respectfully
asserts that the sections of the Kamper reference
relied upon by the Examiner merely disclose a removable
storage device that stores a single profile image that
may then be used to configure a plurality of different
servers. See Kamper, col. 5, lines 20-26. In other
words, a user could employ the smart card 320 of the
Kamper reference to configure multiple servers, but
each of these multiple servers would be configured
identically, because there is only one set of
configuration data on the smart card 320.
Further, at page 4 of the Reply Brief, referring to column
6, lines 35 through 42 of the Kamper reference, Appellant states
the following:
This text actually teaches a process for searching
devices coupled to the server to locate a configuration
profile- not identifying a particular profile based on
what devices are coupled to the server.
To determine whether claim 1 is anticipated, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. We note that representative
claim 1 reads in part as follows:
[C]ode containing a plurality of server
configuration profile images.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007