Appeal No. 2002-2149
Application No. 08/807,096
writing a flag as a function of the CD-ROM detected; and
modifying the configuration file to reflect the CD-ROM device
detected.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Khenson et al. (Khenson) 5,694,600 Dec. 2, 1997
(filed Feb. 9, 1996)
Harding 5,794,052 Aug. 11, 1998
(filed Feb. 27, 1995)
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khenson and Harding.
Claims 2, 7, 19, and 22 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 22) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 25) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
24) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the section 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-18, 20, and 21,
appellant contends that Khenson and Harding, even if combined, fail to teach or
suggest all the claimed limitations. Appellant argues that, contrary to the examiner’s
findings, Khenson fails to teach automatically detecting one of a plurality of different
CD-ROM devices, causing installation of a driver program corresponding to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007