Appeal 2006-2621
Application 09/993,320
As indicated, for example, at column 4, lines 45-67 of Ha, the host computer
acts on a request by a personal computer for a BIOS software upgrade by
selecting and downloading the appropriate software upon receipt of the
personal computer model ID information.
We also find to be unpersuasive, and not commensurate with the
scope of claim 27, Appellants’ related argument (Reply Br. 1-2) which
emphasizes that, in Ha, the host computer does not initiate the upgrade
procedure but, rather, acts on a request from the personal computer for an
upgrade. It is our opinion that Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to
narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations
which have no basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We find no language in appealed claim 27 which requires that the
management device start the upgrade procedure or, conversely, precludes the
communication device from initiating the upgrade procedure. It is also our
view that, although the host computer in Ha waits for an upgrade request
from the personal computer, Ha’s software upgrade disclosure can be
reasonably interpreted as describing the initiation of the upgrade at the host
computer since the upgrade procedure cannot start or be “initiated’ until the
host computer receives the model ID information from the personal
computer.
In view of the above discussion, we find that Appellants have not
successfully rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation with
respect to independent claim 27, as well as claims 28, 29, 32, 75-77, 79, and
80 not separately argued by Appellants.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013