Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
customer as claimed. According to Appellants, Chiloyan does not determine
whether the individual customer has already installed the device, but rather
whether the correct device driver is installed on a computer hosting the
device. Appellants further argue that Chiloyan does not care which
customer has the device or who is using it. In this regard, Appellants
contend that Chiloyan has no way of knowing which devices are installed in
a particular customer environment because device IDs are not associated
with the customer.
Appellants acknowledge that downloading a driver to a computer
necessarily involves identifying the computer’s location. Appellants further
acknowledge that someone uses the computer and device in Chiloyan, and
the user and the customer may even be the same person. Appellants
maintain, however, that this information does not constitute associating a
device ID with the customer in whose environment the device is installed
(Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-3).
The Examiner argues that Chiloyan determines two attributes of a
particular customer based on the device IDs: (1) whether the device driver
has been installed for that particular customer, and (2) whether an
information access flag has been set for that particular customer. The
Examiner further notes that the particular operator of the computer 20 and
the device 56 is inherently associated with that particular device and its
identification numbers (Answer 4-6).
Regarding claims 18 and 23,5 Appellants argue that Chiloyan does not
disclose storing (1) identification numbers and associated configuration
5 Appellants indicate that arguments pertaining to “Ground No. 3” apply to
claims 18 and 23 (Br. 4). Accordingly, we select claim 18 as representative.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013