Appeal No. 1997-2056
Application No. 08/019,798
realizes that neither the Hughes reference or the Lien reference clearly teach or suggest
the use of the identification and use thereof to retrieve the device driver. (See answer at
page 5.) The examiner relies on Fuller to teach this feature. Appellant argues that Fuller
does not teach or suggest the storage of the device driver in the mass memory since Fuller
stores the driver in the memory of the removable system resource/radio modem. (See
brief at page 10.)
Appellant argues that both Lien and Fuller disclose the advantage of storing device
drivers in the removeable resource rather than in the mass storage. (See brief at page
13.) We agree with appellant. Appellant further argues that the combination of Hughes
and Lien would motivate skilled artisans to load a device driver from mass memory at
initial program load rather than “after said bootstrap initialization while an
application program is running and prior to any subsequent bootstrap initialization,
performing . . .” as set forth in the language of claim 17. (See brief at page 11.) We agree
with appellant. We find that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning
why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to store the device drivers in mass memory for use after the bootstrap initialization as set
forth in the language of claim 17.
For the above discussed reasons we agree with appellant that it would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007