Appeal 2007-0475
Application 10/047,312
would understand the “language” to be a national language, as it relates to
“console information” that supports the installation process. (Answer 14.)
What a reference teaches is a question of fact. In re Baird, 16 F.3d
380, 382, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d
1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We consider the
Examiner’s finding of what Agnihotri teaches to be reasonable, and amply
supported by the reference. We sustain the rejection of claim 25.
We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17, as Appellants rely on
the same argument as that in support of claim 25.
Instant claim 4 recites that each of the display panel files is adapted to
operate with a plurality of the management consoles. Appellants contend
that Agnihotri teaches separate display interfaces for use with various
management consoles. Appellants refer to Figure 3 of the reference, and
submit that the plurality of console install DLLs (“dynamics link libraries,”
according to Agnihotri column 4, lines 50 through 55) are each directed to a
different management console. Consequently, the display panels are coded
in separate DLLs and not “adapted to operate with a plurality of
management consoles.” (Appeal Br. 13.)
The Examiner responds that the DLLs represent an adaptation
mechanism, or how a file is “adapted” to operate with a plurality of
management consoles. The graphical representation of a particular applet
(i.e., display panel file) is adapted to operate with a plurality of management
consoles through operation of the DLLs. (Answer 4 and 15.)
We are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s reading of the
reference. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 4, and of claims 11 and 18
not separately argued.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013