Ex Parte Lewis et al - Page 8

                 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