13853546 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

Ex Parte Miller

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

13853546 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/853,546 03/29/2013 Andrew T. Miller 34456 7590 03/28/2018 LARSON NEWMAN, LLP 8200 N. MOP AC EXPY. SUITE 280 AUSTIN, TX 78759 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. DC-101091 2505 EXAMINER MUDRICK, TIMOTHY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docketing@larsonnewman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW T. MILLER (Applicant: Dell Products, LP) Appeal2017-009454 Application 13/853,546 Technology Center 2100 Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2017-009454 Application 13/853,546 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to a system for matching drivers to devices. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (formatting added): 1. An information handling system comprising: a management controller including a device access manager configured to detect a new device within the information handling system, to perform a matching process between properties of the new device and matching criteria for a plurality of drivers in the information handling system, to receive matching values from each of the plurality of drivers, wherein a matching value of a driver represents a number of properties of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver and the matching value increases in value in response to each property of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver, and to select one of the drivers in response to the one driver having a highest matching value, wherein the matching process for a driver is ended without a matching value being returned to the device access manager in response to a property of the new device not matching a corresponding matching criteria of the driver. REJECTIONS Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saulpaugh et al. (US 5,630,076; issued 2 Appeal2017-009454 Application 13/853,546 May 13, 1997) ("Saulpaugh") and Kathail et al. (US 5,802,365; issued Sept. 1, 1998) ("Kathail"). Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Saulpaugh, Kathail, and Amdahl et al. (US 6,253 ,334 B 1; issued June 26, 2001) ("Amdahl"). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kathail and Saulpaugh teaches or suggests "wherein a matching value of a driver represents a number of properties of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver and the matching value increases in value in response to each property of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver," as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner relies on Kathail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and specifically relies on a series of steps performed when a new device is discovered. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Kathail, col. 25, 1. 37 - col. 26, 1. 24 ). The Examiner finds "Step 13 shows that the list of drivers created in steps 4--9 is sorted. That is, the more a device matches a driver, the higher in the list the driver will be." Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner finds by "giving priority to a driver with a 'more appropriate version number,' ... Kathail discloses increases in value in response to each property of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver." In addition, the Examiner finds "the claim is broad enough to support the interpretation of Kathail in which a matching name causes the matching value to increase from 0 to 1 and the driver to be scored the highest matching value based on match of the name only." Ans. 6. 3 Appeal2017-009454 Application 13/853,546 Appellant argues the process in Kathail "merely makes a list of drivers with the same name as a name of a device." App. Br. 6. Appellant further argues "each and every driver in the combined list of Kathail only uses a single criterion for being listed, such as matching device name or matching a compatibility property." App. Br. 8. Kathail describes a comparison between the device name of the selected driver and the driver name, as well as a comparison between a compatible name of the selected device against the driver name. Kathail, col. 22, 11. 58---62; see also Kathail col. 25, 11. 54--67 (steps 4, 6, 7, 8). If there is a match under either name, the driver is added to a candidate list for the selected device. Kathail, col. 22, 11. 62-67; see also Kathail, col. 25, 11. 55 - col. 26, 1. 5 (steps 4, 8, 9, 10). The candidate list is sorted using version number, and drivers with more appropriate versions are placed higher in the candidate list. Kathail, col. 23, 11. 32-35; see also Kathail, col. 25, 11. 11. 55 - col. 26, 1. 12 (steps 5, 9, 13). The Examiner has not adequately identified functionality in Kathail that corresponds to the claimed "matching value" that "increases in value in response to each property of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver." Claim 1 defines a "matching value" as "represent[ing] a number of properties of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver" and "increase[ing] in value in response to each property of the device that matches the matching criteria of the driver," which is consistent with how matching value is described in the Specification. See e.g., Spec. i-f 17 (describing the driver returning "a matching value of two" and "[t]he matching value represents a number of properties of the device that matches the matching criteria of a driver"); Spec. i-fi-1 18, 19 (describing the driver 4 Appeal2017-009454 Application 13/853,546 returning "a matching value of zero"); Spec. i-f 20 (describing matching values of two and zero); Fig. 5 (describing returning "a value greater than zero"); Fig. 6 (describing setting "matching value to zero"); see also claim 2 ("set the matching value to zero"). In other words, the matching value is a numeric value that functions as a counter to keep track of the device properties that match the matching criteria of the driver. We fail to see, and the Examiner has not adequately explained, how Kathail's matching based upon either a name or a compatible property to create a driver candidate list, and sorting the resulting list of driver candidates based upon version, teaches a matching value as claimed. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), and dependent claims 2-8, argued for their dependency thereto. App. Br. 8. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8. REVERSED 5