Appeal 2006-2621
Application 09/993,320
We further find, Appellants argument (Reply Br. 3) to the contrary
notwithstanding, no error in the Examiner’s establishment (Answer 11, 37)
of proper motivation for the combination of Itoh with Ha. In our view, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that Itoh’s
teaching of including a software version number, i.e., revision number, as
part of the computer model identification for software upgrade purposes
would serve as an obvious enhancement to the system of Ha.
In view of the above discussion, we find no error in the Examiner’s
establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness, based on the
combination of Ha and Itoh, with respect to appealed claim 1, as well as
claims 2-5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 30, 69, 73, and 81 not separately argued by
Appellants.
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 17-22) with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the remaining appealed claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 20-
26, 31, 33-40, 74, and 78 based on Ha in various combinations with the
secondary references similarly rely on the assertion that the secondary
references do not cure the deficiency of Ha in disclosing the initiation of
software upgrade without administrator intervention. We similarly find this
argument to be unpersuasive since we found, as discussed earlier, that Ha
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013