Ex Parte Dimmock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 13, 2014

10842071 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BOYD K. DIMMOCK, PHUC K. DO,
MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, E. MICHAEL MAXIMILIEN,
and RICHARD J. PUETZER
____________

Appeal 2011-004513
Application 10/842,071
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 20-29 and 31. Claims 1-19 and 30 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2011-004513
Application 10/842,071

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 13, 2010, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed August 19, 2010, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
October 19, 2010, 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 Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a device driver for a POS (point-of-
sale) system, where the device driver is independent of APIs (application
programming interfaces), and where the APIs are UnifiedPOS compliant.
See generally Spec. 4:9-16.

Claim 20 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
20. A method for providing a device driver for a POS (point-
of-sale) system, the device driver being independent of APIs
(application programming interfaces), the APIs being
UnifiedPOS compliant, the method comprising:
receiving a first command at a top layer of the device
driver from a first POS application using a first UnifiedPOS
compliant API;
receiving a second command at the top layer of the
device driver from a second POS application using a second
UnifiedPOS compliant API, the second UnifiedPOS compliant
API being different from the first UnifiedPOS compliant API;
exposing the first and second commands to JavaPOS
from the top layer to a middle layer of the device driver, the
middle layer comprising:
Appeal 2011-004513
Application 10/842,071

3
a first middle layer to implement Unified POS
semantics and expose JavaPOS,
a second middle layer to abstract POS devices
without direct knowledge of a transport or exposed API
to give pure access to a device function, and
a third middle layer for transport binding;
sending the first and second commands to a bottom layer
for transport in accordance with a format recognized by a
device associated with the transport, the bottom layer to
separate a native portion of bus connectivity APIs from the
middle layer, the bottom layer supporting multiple types of
transport, and being the only layer needing alterations to
accommodate platform dependent code, wherein the top,
middle and bottom layers being are integrated within the device
driver, and wherein a layer never skips to interface a layer that
is directly adjacent;
receiving events and state information from the device in
a common event description;
if the device is associated with the first application,
sending the state information to the first application in a format
compliant with the first UnifiedPOS compliant API; and
if the device is associated with the second application,
sending the state information to the second application in a
format compliant with the second UnifiedPOS compliant API.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 20-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over UnifiedPOS (UnifiedPOS Specification Version
1.7 (Jul. 24, 2002)), in view of Apte (US 6,269,373 B1 (Jul. 31, 2001)).
Ans. 3-9.

Appeal 2011-004513
Application 10/842,071

4
ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3-12). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-2) that UnifiedPOS does
not suggest the claimed element in independent claims 20 and 31 of “a
second middle layer to abstract POS devices without direct knowledge of a
transport or exposed API to give pure access to a device function.” In
particular, Appellants argue that in UnifiedPOS “even if the Device
Services/second middle layer does not have direct knowledge of a transport
pursuant to the Examiner’s reasoning, Devices Services/second middle layer
still has direct knowledge of an exposed API.” Reply Br. 2 (underlining in
original omitted).
At the outset, we note that claims 20 and 31 recite alternative
language (without direct knowledge of a transport or exposed API).
Therefore, we broadly but reasonably construe claims 20 and 31 to require
only one of without direct knowledge of a transport or exposed API.
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings with respect to this issue. Ans. 5-6. As explained by
the Examiner:
In the figure on pg. B-5, UnifiedPOS shows a “second middle
layer” (JavaPOS Device Service) bound to a “bottom layer”
(Serial Driver, Parallel Driver, USB) by a “third middle layer”
(Comm Port API). The JavaPOS Device Service’s interactions
with the “bottom layer” transport drivers (i.e. Serial Driver,
Parallel Driver and USB) are performed through calls to the
Comm Port API, thus any “knowledge of the transport
driver[s]” is provided by the Comm Port API and is indirect.

Appeal 2011-004513
Application 10/842,071

5
Ans. 10 (emphasis ours).
We find no error in the Examiner’s determination that UnifiedPOS
teaches or suggests a Device Service that has indirect (i.e., not direct)
knowledge of the serial, parallel, and USB transports due to the intervening
Comm Port API. Id.
Therefore, we find that UnifiedPOS teaches “a second middle layer to
abstract POS devices without direct knowledge of a transport or exposed
API to give pure access to a device function,” as recited in claims 20 and 31.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 20 and 31 as well as the rejection of
dependent claims 21-29 not separately argued by Appellants.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 20-29 and 31 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20-29 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

msc