Appeal 2007-0210
Application 10/167,359
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 and 26-49 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
1. Appellants have invented a system and method for transferring
a software update from a server (Appellants’ 14) to one or more
clients (Appellants’ 12) over a network, for example the
Internet (Appellants’ 16). In the terms of the Specification,
“update” is read broadly to include many types of electronic
data: programs, data files, instructions. (Specification, ¶ 0014).
2. A careful reading of the claims in view of the issues raised in
the Brief, Reply Brief and Answer indicates the key limitation
to be “…an update manager accessible by the processor and
adapted to obtain a listing identifying each of a plurality of data
packets corresponding to the update prior to a transfer of the
update.” The Specification (Specification, ¶ 0018) and
common understanding of “update” indicate the meaning of the
word is the full update, as the Specification refers to parts of the
update in terms of individual data packets.
3. Examiner’s rejection relies upon Dougall to teach as part of the
prior art a server sending an update to a processor adapted to
receive the transfer, but relies upon Doshi to “teach the
limitation of obtaining a list identifying each of data packet
prior to a transfer.” (Answer 3). It is noted that in Doshi the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013