Appeal No. 2003-0553 Page 8
Application No. 09/137,285
B. CLAIMS 9-20
The examiner asserts, "the concept of having a code to establish or control
communication between a peripheral and a computer system is inherent in Arato . . .
because computer system usually has code set in their memory from the manufacture
that enables them to communicate with certain peripherals." (Examiner's Answer at 3.)
The appellant argues, "nowhere in the Arato reference the Appellant finds that the
peripheral provides the code to identify itself, as claimed in claim 18. Rather, according
to the Arato reference, the CPU 10 generates the address signal, which uniquely
identifies the selected peripheral. See col. 3, lines 23-31, and col. 4, lines 5-7." (Reply
Br. at 2.)
1. Claim Construction
Independent claim 9 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "determine
whether a code received from said peripheral corresponds to a code identifying the
peripheral as one that may be used with the computer system;" independent claim 18
includes similar limitations. Similarly, independent claim 12 recites in pertinent part the
following limitations: "causing a peripheral to provide a code to a computer system
which identifies said peripheral;" independent claim 15 includes similar limitations.
Giving claims 9, 12, 15, and 18 their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require that a peripheral generate and send a code identifying itself to a computer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007