Ex Parte DO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2013

12132162 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2013)

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