Appeal 2006-2621
Application 09/993,320
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. In particular, the Examiner
contends that Ha discloses the selective downloading of a requested
firmware upgrade from a management system to a communication device
“without an administrator based on the device ID” as claimed. With respect
to the remainder of the appealed claims, the Examiner asserts that the
teachings of Ha alone or in various combinations with the cited secondary
references establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
We affirm.
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), with respect to appealed claims 27-29,
32, 75-77, 79, and 80, does Ha have a disclosure which anticipates
the claimed invention? Specifically, does Ha disclose the selective
downloading of a requested firmware upgrade from a management
system to a communication device without administrator
involvement?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-26,
30, 31, 33-40, 69-74, 78, and 81, has the Examiner established a
prima facie case of obviousness based on Ha, taken alone, or in
various combinations with the secondary references?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants have invented a method and apparatus for selectively
downloading from a management device firmware needed by a
communication device. The communication device ID is sent to the
management device which selects the appropriate firmware for the particular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013