Appeal No. 2004-1749
Application No. 09/047,396
portion is the two-way translating communication layer between
the OS of the host computer system and the OS independent device
driver portion (col. 4, lines 36-39).
The appellant argues (brief, pages 9-10):
Hanson does not teach or suggest combining the GUI and
URL [uniform resource locator] information in order to
use a URL as a conversion means. Although Hanson, as
well as Venkatraman, disclose using URL information for
identifying an intranet/Internet location of a
peripheral device, the combined references do not teach
or suggest changing control setting values of the
device through the URL information. That is, nowhere
does Hanson or Venkatraman disclose or suggest managing
URL information and control information in
correspondence with each other, and/or converting the
URL information into predetermined control information,
as recited in independent claims 1, 3, 6 and 13.
The examiner responds (answer, page 16):
Appellant’s claims do not specifically define “control
information”. Both Venkatraman and Hanson define
devices via URLs (i.e.[,] to at least define location
of a device). Since a URL address must be mapped to a
unique IP number at a server (in this case, mapping
said URL to a device IP number), the IP number, along
with said mapping, can be interpreted as control
information associated with controlling a device.
Converting a URL to a device’s unique IP number can be
interpreted as managing URL information, and control
information.
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, as the claim language would have been read by one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007