Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
information in a first database, and (2) associated device drivers in a second
database as claimed (Br. 5-6). The Examiner argues that a “database” is
interpreted as “a file, table or other repository in which information is stored
at some location.” With this construction, the Examiner argues that
Chiloyan discloses two such “databases” on the server that store ID numbers
and associated configuration information distinct from the associated device
drivers (Answer 6-7).
ISSUES
(1) Have Appellants established that the Examiner erred in finding
that Chiloyan’s system associates the identification numbers with the
customer as recited in representative claim 15?
(2) Have Appellants established that the Examiner erred in finding
that Chiloyan’s system stores (1) identification numbers and associated
configuration information in a first database, and (2) associated device
drivers in a second database as recited in representative claim 18?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
specific teachings of Chiloyan (Answer 4; Final Rejection 2-6) are not in
dispute except with respect to the limitations noted above. (See Br. 3-6.)
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Chiloyan as they pertain to the undisputed claim limitations.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013