Appeal 2007-1102
Application 10/006,692
Representative Claim 18
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
18. At the outset, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of “database” as “a
file, table or other repository in which information is stored at some
location” is reasonable and, indeed, unrebutted. Further, we agree with the
Examiner’s analysis regarding the different “databases” that store the (1)
identification numbers along with associated configuration information, and
(2) drivers respectively (Answer 6-7).
We add that the identifier obtained from the peripheral (i.e., the
vendor ID and/or product ID) is used as an index into a remote database to
reference the network address related to the peripheral. Using the obtained
network address, the driver for the peripheral is then downloaded from the
remote device (Chiloyan, ¶¶ 0044-45; abstract).
In our view, the index comprising the identification numbers and its
associated storage reasonably meets a “first database” as claimed.
Moreover, the associated drivers would inherently be stored in a memory
location different from the “first database.” Such a distinct memory
location, in our view, reasonably constitutes a “second database” as claimed.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 18 is sustained. Likewise, we will also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 23.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in finding that
Chiloyan’s system associates the identification numbers with the customer
as recited in representative claim 15. Moreover, Appellants have not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013