Appeal 2007-1881
Application 10/092,259
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Mitchelmore US 2002/0090934 A1 Jul. 11, 2002
(filed Nov. 20, 2001)
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Mitchelmore.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 16, 2006) and
to Appellants' Brief (filed February 24, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
December 13, 2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 19.
OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 4-7) that Mitchelmore fails to disclose a
"build-to-order configuration engine for communicating with developers,
coordinating software licensing, arranging software downloads and
preventing conflicts," as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner
asserts (Answer 3) that Mitchelmore discloses the claimed "build-to-order
configuration engine" in paragraphs 8, 14, 17-19, 58, 65, 100, 102, 103, 178,
181, and 183. The first issue, therefore, is whether Mitchelmore discloses a
build-to-order configuration engine for communicating with developers,
coordinating software licensing, arranging software downloads, and
preventing conflicts.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013