Appeal No. 1998-1589
Application No. 08/388,631
required interface to the port, and device drivers were well known interfaces for such uses.
The examiner maintains that
[t]he use of device drivers to control devices connected to a computer, as
taught in Article 15, was notoriously well known in the art at the time the
invention was made. In fact, most devices, particularly those connected to
ports, require that a device drive be installed in the operating system before
the device can be used. The examiner agrees that Article 15 does not
explicitly teach a device driver for use with a true random generator,
however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
some type of device driver would be required. (See answer at page 5.)
We agree with the examiner.
The examiner further stated that
[r]egarding claims 21-24, 27, and 28, applicant alleges that Fasang teaches
a ‘special built-in system’ which would not require a device driver for
communication with the CPU. The examiner agrees that Fasang teaches a
built-in system, however, the combination of Fasang and Stankovic (fig. 5)
teaches a system which is connected to a computer port, and would typically
require a device driver, such as is taught in Article 15, to be included in the
computer's operating system. (See answer at pages 5-6.)
We agree with the examiner. Here, our general agreement with the examiner is based
upon the broad language of claim 21 wherein no detail of the operation of the interface has
been recited in the language of the claim which would have been more than the mere
combination of a interface with a RNG.
With this as a foundation upon which the decision was based, appellant now requests
that this Board perform the “courtesy of explicitly pointing out . . . .” (See Request for
Rehearing at page 4.) But we note that there is no “computer port” recited in the language
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007