Appeal 2006-2621
Application 09/993,320
does, in fact, disclose the initiating of software upgrade downloading
without administrator intervention.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
With respect to independent claim 27, as well as claims 28, 29, 32,
75-77, 79, and 80 not separately argued by Appellants, the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation based on the teachings of Ha
which has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from
Appellants. A prima facie case of obviousness which has not been
successfully rebutted by Appellants has also been established by the
Examiner with respect to appealed claims 1-26, 30, 31, 33-40, 69-74, 78,
and 81 based on various combinations of Ha with the secondary references.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C § 102(e)
rejection of appealed claims 27-29, 32, 75-77, 79, and 80 as well as the 35
U.S.C § 103(a) rejection of appealed claims 1-26, 30, 31, 33-40, 69-74, 78,
and 81.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013