Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
ANALYSIS
Representative Claim 15
We will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative
claim 15. We note at the outset that the claim merely calls for “associating
the identification numbers with the customer.” In our view, the user of
personal computer (PC) 20 in Chiloyan fully meets the “customer” as
claimed giving the term “customer” its broadest reasonable interpretation.7
As the Findings of Fact indicate, the user in Chiloyan initiates the
affirmative act of connecting the peripheral to the PC’s I/O interface (Fig. 2;
Step 61). This very act “associates” the peripheral -- and its associated
identification numbers -- with the user giving the limitation its broadest
reasonable interpretation.8 Even if we assume, without deciding, that the
peripheral could be utilized by different users, this particular user
nonetheless initiates the process of installing drivers for this particular
peripheral. In this sense, the user is “associated” with the peripheral and its
associated identification numbers that are extracted to determine the
appropriate network address. Since the user also fully meets the “customer”
as claimed -- an interpretation that Appellants acknowledge9 -- the
7 The term “customer” is defined, in pertinent part, as “a person or thing of a
specified kind that one has to deal with.” See Compact Oxford English
Dictionary, at http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/customer?view=uk
(last visited June 7, 2007).
8 The term “associate” is defined, in pertinent part, as “to bring together or
into relationship in any of various intangible ways….” See Merriam-
Webster Online, at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-
bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=associate (last visited June 7, 2007).
9 See, e.g., Reply Br. 2 (“The user of any one or more of the multiple devices
is completely irrelevant to the acts recited in Claim 15 unless the user
happens to also be the customer….) (emphasis added).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013