Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
peripheral and its associated identification numbers in Chiloyan are therefore
associated with the customer as claimed.
Appellants’ argument that the user (i.e., the customer) would have to
use all of the devices to associate the identification numbers assigned to the
devices (Reply Br. 2-3) is unavailing. As we indicated previously, the very
act of connecting the peripheral to the PC’s interface to install the driver by
extracting the peripheral’s identification number inherently associates the
peripheral and its associated identification number with that particular user.
For every such peripheral installed in Chiloyan’s system using this
technique, the particular user (i.e., customer) would likewise be associated
with the respective peripheral and associated identification number.
We add that the term “customer” is quite broad and is not only fully
met by the user as noted above, but is also fully met by an entity,
organization, enterprise, or other group of users that collectively constitute a
“customer.” In this regard, we note that PC 20 may operate in a networked
environment such as that found in offices, intranets, etc. (Chiloyan, ¶¶ 0031-
32). Under this interpretation, peripherals -- and their respective
identification numbers -- installed by different individual users in such a
networked environment (e.g., users within an office) would be inherently
associated with the customer (i.e., that particular office).
For at least these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 15. Since Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of claims 16, 17, and 20-22, these claims fall with
representative claim 15. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013