Appeal 2007-2149
Application 10/224,099
Appellant suggests that an “operating system” may be considered a
“further application.” (See Reply Br. 3-4.) Operating system software,
however, is normally considered distinct from “application” software; e.g., a
WINDOWS operating system as opposed to a word processing application
(WORD) that runs on the operating system.
In any event, Appellant alleges that in Salgado a further application
would have to be executed to install a new printer driver, referring to
paragraph 10 of the reference. (Reply Br. 3.) We do not find support for
Appellant’s reading of paragraph 10. Salgado describes an embodiment
where a separate upgrade or install program may upgrade and install the
driver (e.g., ¶¶ 22, 28), but also describes the material embodiment where
the automatic upgrade is performed by the driver itself (e.g., ¶¶ 22, 24). The
reference expressly teaches that the driver can install the new version
automatically, notifying the user only after the update is complete. Salgado
¶ 27; Fig. 4.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in response to the
rejection of claim 1, but find none of the arguments persuasive. Because
Appellant relies on substantially similar limitations in independent claim 10,
and relies on the same arguments in response to the rejection of claim 20,
claims 2-20 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We thus
sustain the rejection of each claim on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013