Ex Parte Hampton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2014

10831469 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KATHRYN A. HAMPTON and GAINES C. TEAGUE ___________ Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “an apparatus and method for managing related drivers associated with a bus driver.” Abstract. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. An apparatus for managing related drivers associated with a virtual bus driver, comprising: a physical device object table stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium of a system having a processor, and configured to contain a plurality of entries; a plurality of child devices stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium of the system, wherein each of the plurality of child devices is associated with each of the plurality of entries, and each of the plurality of child devices is configured to have a name, associated therewith, the name stored in the physical device object table, wherein the name is configured to provide information about a child device to allow user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access the child device; and a virtual bus driver stored on a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium of the system, and configured to interface between the child device Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 3 and an adapter coupled to one of a plurality of bus slots associated with a bus bridge that manages a bus. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-9, 14, 15, 21-24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shah (US Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0102682 A1; published May 12, 2005), Wilson (US Patent Number 6,763,454 B2; issued July 13, 2004), and Resch (US Patent Number 7,493,626 B2; issued February 17, 2009). Answer 7-18. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shah, Wilson, Resch, and Lortz (US Patent Number 6,041,364; issued March 21, 2000). Answer 18-19. Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shah, Wilson, Resch, Lortz and Dubal (US Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0178300 A1; published November 28, 2002). Answer 19-21. Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Saulpaugh (US Patent Number 5,630,076; issued May 13, 1997), Ruget (US Patent Number 7,096,473 B2; issued August 22, 2006), and Resch. Answer 21-28. Claims 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Saulpaugh, Ruget, Resch, and Shah. Answer 28-30. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Saulpaugh, Ruget, Resch, and Wilson. Answer 30-32. Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 4 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 15, 2011), the Answer (mailed November 25, 2011) and the Reply Brief (filed January 14, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants contend Shah, Wilson, and Resch, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the “each of the plurality of child devices is configured to have a name . . . wherein the name is configured to provide information about a child device to allow user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access the child device” limitation recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds “Shah as modified by Wilson” fails to explicitly disclose “the name configured to provide information about the child device.” Answer 11. The Examiner addresses the deficiency of the Shah/Wilson combination by relying upon Resch’s disclosure of the OS [operating system] using a database containing all of the device nodes to identify particular nodes capable of performing functions upon receiving a query from another driver and therefore allowing the user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access the children devices. Id. Appellants contend Resch does not address the Shah/Wilson combination because: Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 5 Resch teaches a mechanism wherein one device driver can cause a function to be invoked by another device driver. Resch, col. 1, ll. 52-54; col. 3, ll. 43-45. As stated in Resch,” [d]uring the boot sequence of the computer system..[,] builds a device tree for the identified devices[, and] assigns each device a unique identifier to facilitate identification of the device.” See id., col. 4, ll. 11-16. However, the unique identifier is not disclosed as being configured to allow user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access a child device, as generally recited in the present claims. Rather, the unique identifier is used to allow communications between device drivers. See e.g., id., col. 1, ll. 52-54; col. 3, ll. 43-45; col. 4, ll. 23-26. Thus, Resch does not remedy the deficiencies of Shah and Wilson, alone or in any hypothetical combinations with Shah and Wilson. Appeal Brief 12. The Examiner finds Resch discloses: “The system instructs the operating system to perform the function on the remote device”, col. 2, lines 29-21 [sic], which represents allow user environment applications direct access to the child device, since typically a user application of a system instructs the operating system to call a remote device driver and direct access to the remote device driver function is provided to the operating system, after being instructed by the user application, by “invoking the function at the remote device driver” using the unique identifier, col. 2, lines 32-34. Answer 43. Appellants further contend: Resch expressly states that the operating system performs the function in the remote device, not a user application. See Resch at col. 2, ll. 29-31. In fact, the word user does not appear in Resch at all. As such, Resch does not disclose “user environment applications ... to directly access the child device,” as recited in the independent claims. Assuming arguendo that a user application is instructing the operating system to perform Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 6 the function, the alleged user application is not directly accessing the remote device. The user application in the Examiner’s proposed scenario is instructing the operating system, not the remote device. Accordingly, Resch does not disclose a “name configured ... to allow user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access the child device,” as recited by the independent claims. Reply Brief 2. We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because Resch is silent in regard to a user application and the Examiner does not provide evidence to support the assertion that “typically a user application of a system instructs the operating system to call a remote device driver and direct access to the remote device driver function is provided to the operating system.”1 See Answer 43. Therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8, 21, and 26, commensurate in scope with claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 1 Wilson discloses in column 20, lines 56-62: The data structure for the hardware tree 152 is maintained in a hierarchical arrangement of device nodes within an allocated portion of the nonvolatile memory supplied by the computer memory 22. This stored information can be accessed by the operating system 10, specifically the configuration manager 158, by device drivers, or by application programs (via a common interrupt). However, the Examiner does not rely upon Wilson to teach application programs but instead relies upon Resch that does not disclose user environment applications. Thus we are constrained by the record before us to consider the Examiner’s reliance upon Resch to teach and/or suggest the argued limitations. . Appeal 2012-004833 Application 10/831,469 7 obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9, 14, 15, and 22-24 for the same reasons articulated above. We also do not sustain dependent claims 10, 11, and 13 because the additional prior art does not address the noted deficiency of the Shah/Wilson/Resch combination. In regard to claim 16, the Examiner finds the combination of Saulpaugh/Ruget fail to disclose “wherein the object name provides sufficient information about each of the plurality of the child devices to allow user environment applications and operating system drivers to directly access each of the plurality of the child device.” Answer 26. The Examiner relies upon Resch to address the deficiency of the Saulpaugh/Ruget combination and for reasons we articulated above, Resch does not address the deficiency of the noted combination. Therefore we do not sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of independent claim 16, as well as dependent claims 17-20 and 25 for the reasons articulated above. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejections of claims 1-11 and 13- 26 are reversed. REVERSED tkl