Ex Parte DO et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 5, 201312132162 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PHUC KY DO and JOHN DAVID LANDERS, JR. ____________________ Appeal 2011-002857 1 Application 12/132,162 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2011-002857 Application 12/132,162 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-14. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for determining the number of input/output (I/O) products supported by a personal computer (PC) to thereby retrieve the appropriate software drivers associated therewith. (Spec. 1.) In particular, prior to connecting peripheral devices to an I/O connector panel (12), a connector card (10) examines the memory (202) of the connector panel to determine I/O capabilities therein. Then, for each supported peripheral device, the connector downloads the necessary software driver if it is not present in memory. (Spec. 2.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows: 1. An input/output (I/O) connector panel comprising: a plurality of I/O connectors; and a memory containing information about the capabilities of the I/O connector panel prior to connecting one or more peripherals to the I/O connector panel, wherein the I/O connector panel provides a connection point between I/O devices and the system, wherein the information is examined in the memory wherein at least one driver is downloaded to a system coupled to the I/O connector panel based upon the examined information. Appeal 2011-002857 Application 12/132,162 3 Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Lada US 7,269,746 B1 Sep. 11, 2007 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as being anticipated by Lada. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-8. Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding that Lada describes a memory containing information about the capabilities of an I/O connector panel to thereby download a driver to a system coupled to the I/O connector based upon the examined information, as recited claim 1? Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Lada anticipates claim 1 because Lada does not describe the disputed limitations emphasized above. In particular, Appellants argue that Lada discloses, upon detecting an option pack being inserted therein, a main unit downloads applications and drivers from a separate memory device on the option pack onto the main unit. (App. Br. 6.) According to Appellants, Lada discloses downloading drivers to execute application programs on the option pack, but not for I/O devices connected to the option pack. (Id.) In response, the Appeal 2011-002857 Application 12/132,162 4 Examiner concludes that the claim does not require a driver that would work with devices capable of being supported by the I/O control panel. (Ans. 7.) Therefore, the Examiner finds that Lada’s disclosure of an option pack having a memory from which a driver is downloaded to a main unit describes the disputed limitations. (Id.) On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s finding of anticipation. First, we agree with the Examiner that while Appellants’ Specification indicates drivers downloaded to the system may be drivers that would work with the I/O devices connected to the system (App. Br. 6), the disputed claim limitations are not so narrow. Rather, the disputed limitations merely require downloading a driver to a system connected to the I/O connector panel based upon information examined in the memory of the connector panel. Nothing in the claim specifies the purpose or the subsequent use of the downloaded driver. We thus find unavailing Appellants’ argument that Lada’s disclosure of downloading drivers from the option pack to the main unit does not describe the disputed limitations. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the option pack teaches the I/O connector panel including a memory containing driver and program information, which are downloaded onto the main unit. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Appellants argue Lada’s disclosure of a table describing PCMCIA/CF slots in the option pack does not disclose information describing attributes of a type of the I/O connector panel or Appeal 2011-002857 Application 12/132,162 5 attributes of connector logic that links the I/O connector panel to the system. (App. Br. 7.) Beyond this naked argument, Appellants have not explained why the cited textual portions of Lada do not describe the disputed limitations. Appellants are reminded that merely reciting the claim language and the textual portions of the references without comparing and contrasting them is not a persuasive argument. We find on this record Appellants’ arguments have fallen short of showing error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Claims 2, 3, and 5-14 not separately argued fall with claim 1 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation