Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a system and method for facilitating device driver
installation in a customer environment. Specifically, information about a
device for which a driver is to be installed on a computer is automatically
accessed. Then, a driver is automatically selected, installed, and configured
on the computer.2 Claims 14 and 15 are illustrative:
14. A method for facilitating device driver installation, comprising:
assigning a discrete identification number to each of a plurality of
devices installed in a customer environment;
associating information for configuring a driver for each of the
devices installed in the customer environment with the identification number
for the device; and
storing the identification numbers and associated configuration
information together at a location remote from the customer environment
and accessible to the customer environment.
15. The method of Claim 14, further comprising associating the
identification numbers with the customer.
claims 15-18 and 20-23 are before us. Appellants’ argument on Page 3 of
the Brief contending that the Examiner should have entered a proposed
amendment after final rejection is a petitionable matter under 37 CFR 1.181
– not an appealable matter. See MPEP § 1002.02(c) (noting that petitions
involving examiners’ refusals to enter amendments are decided by
Technology Center Directors). Because we do not have jurisdiction over
this matter, it is therefore not before us. See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board
will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters
which are not properly before the Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The
Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the
Director on petition….”).
2 See generally Specification 3:20-30.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013