Appeal 2007-0728
Application 09/954,796
1
2 From the above Findings of Fact, we must conclude that
3 • The art applied shows suggesting an alternative in response to receipt of a
4 user selection that identifies a software program the user already possesses
5 (FF 31).
6 The Appellants take a more narrow construction of what a user already
7 possesses than the claim allows (Br. 17). As we note above, if an update is
8 available, that version of the software is an alternative program to the one that the
9 user already possesses (FF30).
10 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 13, and 19 under
11 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parthesarathy and Kroening.
12
13 Claims 3, 21-24, and 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
14 Parthesarathy and Himmel.
15 From the above Findings of Fact, we must conclude that
16 • The art applied shows querying the user as to how the user plans to use a
17 peripheral device (claim 3)(FF34).
18 • The art applied shows querying a user as to what the peripheral device may
19 be used for (claim 21)(FF36).
20 The Appellants argue for a more narrow construction of how a user plans to
21 use and what something may be used for than the claims allow. To configure is to
22 indicate how what is configured is to be used and what it may be used for (FF33 &
23 35).
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013