Ex Parte Reynolds et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2012

11732280 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte EDDY REYNOLDS and LUKE MULCAHY ________________ Appeal 2010-004728 Application 11/732,280 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brown (US 2006/0037084 A1; Feb. 16, 2006) in view of Burke (US 2003/0056051 A1; Mar. 20, 2003). Illustrative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: Appeal 2010-004728 Application 11/732,280 2 1. A method to manage access to a USB port in an electronic apparatus having a basic input/output system and an operating system, comprising: detecting a connection of a device to a USB port; in response to the connection, generating a system management interrupt that causes the basic input/output system to assume control of the electronic apparatus; initiating, in the basic input/output system, an enumeration process for the device connected to the USB port; determining, in the basic input/output system, whether the device comprises mass storage; determining, in the basic input/output system, whether the USB port is configured to accept a device that comprises mass storage; and initiating, in the basic input/output system, a routine to block access to the USB port in the event that the device comprises mass storage. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Examiner’s findings set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer, including the findings in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief and we adopt them as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We find that Appellants’ arguments that are first raised in their Reply Brief could have been presented in their Appeal Brief and are therefore waived. “[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). “[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.” Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns Appeal 2010-004728 Application 11/732,280 3 S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted). CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-26. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-26 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED babc