Ex Parte Qumei

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2011

10813212 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte IYAD QUMEI
____________________

Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,2121
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed March 30, 2004, claiming priority to Provisional
Application Serial No. 60/495091 filed March 31, 2003. The real party in
interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. (App. Br. 2.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-41 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to a software and firmware
updating device, method, and related network for updating software and/or
firmware resident in a networked device, at least a portion of the software or
firmware being encrypted. (Spec. ¶¶ [0008], [0010].)3
Representative Claim
Independent claims 1, 22, and 31 further illustrate the invention, and
are reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An electronic device network for updating at least one
of firmware and software in a plurality of electronic devices
using at least one electronic device update, the network
comprising:
at least one update generator adapted to generate
updates, the at least one update generator comprising an
encrypting and decrypting engine;
at least one update store storing a plurality of electronic
device updates;
at least one update delivery server adapted to dispense
the plurality of electronic device updates; and

3 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed April 3, 2008; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 20, 2008.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 23, 2008.
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

3
wherein at least a portion of the at least one of firmware
and software in the plurality of electronic devices is encrypted.

22. An electronic device employing one of encrypting
and decrypting techniques to update firmware and software, the
electronic device comprising:
random access memory; and
non-volatile memory, the non-volatile memory
comprising:
an update agent;
a first in first out (FIFO) memory device;
a firmware;
a software application; and
an update, wherein the electronic device is adapted
to update an encrypted portion of at least one of the firmware
and the software application selected for updating, and wherein
updating at least one of the firmware and the software
application comprises decrypting the encrypted portion.

31. A method of building a firmware upgrade for use in
an electronic device incorporating encryption, the method
comprising:
building a firmware image to be encrypted, the firmware
image comprising a plurality of components; and
encrypting the components before assembling the
components into an encrypted firmware image.

References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Nachenberg US 6,230,316 B1 May 8, 2001
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

4

Selkirk US 2003/0051160 A1 March 13, 2003

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 22-28, 30, 31, and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Selkirk.4
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 32-38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Selkirk and
Nachenberg.5

ISSUES
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us are as follows:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Selkirk discloses: (1) an
“update generator . . . comprising an encrypting and decrypting engine;” and
(2) “wherein at least a portion of the at least one of firmware and software in
the plurality of electronic devices is encrypted” as recited in Appellant’s
claim1?

4 The Final Office Action mailed November 23, 2007 rejects claims 1-9 and
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Selkirk; and rejects claims 10,
11, and 13-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Selkirk
and Nachenberg. (Final Rejection at pp. 2, 5.) The Examiner’s Answer
withdraws the rejection of claims 3, 13-21, 29, 39, and 40 (Ans. 3-4), and
revises the basis for rejecting claims 22-28, 30, 31, and 41 (previously
§ 103(a), now § 102(a)) (Ans. 5).
5 See Note 4 (supra) – claims 22-28, 30, 31, and 41 were previously rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

5
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Selkirk discloses: (1) a “non-
volatile memory . . . comprising . . . a first in first out (FIFO) memory
device;” and (2) “wherein the electronic device is adapted to update an
encrypted portion of at least one of the firmware and the software
application selected for updating, and wherein updating at least one of the
firmware and the software application comprises decrypting the encrypted
portion” as recited in Appellant’s claim 22?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Selkirk discloses “building a
firmware image to be encrypted, the firmware image comprising a plurality
of components; and encrypting the components before assembling the
components into an encrypted firmware image” as recited in Appellant’s
claim 31?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Selkirk Reference
1. Selkirk generally describes a firmware device and method for
downloading data from a network server to a firmware device. Selkirk
describes a computer sending
a request to a server to download the particular data to a
particular firmware device. The server contacts the firmware
device directly through the network to initiate the transfer. The
server and firmware device communicate over an encrypted
data channel so as to prevent any third party, including the
aforementioned computer, from intercepting and storing the
transmitted data.
(¶ [0009].) The downloaded data may be an update to firmware. (¶ [0008].)
2. Selkirk also describes, with respect to Figure 1, transferring a
firmware update. A computer (102) communicates with a server (106) and a
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

6
firmware device (108), which may be located within computer. The
computer requests an update to the firmware device – in this example, the
computer’s firmware – from the server, and the server “sends the data over
an encrypted communications channel to the firmware device 108, where the
data is decrypted. No decryption of the data takes place outside of firmware
device 108. . . . [O]nly [the] firmware device 108 can decrypt the encrypted
transmission.” Preferably, the encrypted communications channel utilizes
“the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol.” (¶ [0017]; Fig. 1.)
3. Selkirk further describes a firmware device (108), including an
embedded processor (200B) receiving instructions from cryptographic
program memory (204B) through internal bus (202B), and also sending data
to and receiving data from the computer (102) through external bus interface
(206B) and external bus (208B). (¶ [0023]; Fig. 2B.) “Firmware memory
210B . . . provides storage for the actual firmware (i.e., the code and data to
be used by the computer or peripheral.” (¶ [0024] (emphasis added).)
4. Selkirk further explains that “SSL must rely on some form of
public-key cryptography [(cryptosystems or ‘cipher suites’)] in its
handshake procedure.” The cipher suites supported by SSL include:
DES (data encryption standard), 3DES (triple DES), DSA
(digital signature algorithm), KEA (key exchange algorithm),
MD5 (message digest algorithm 5), RC2 (Rivest cipher 2), RC4
(Rivest cipher 4), RSA (Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman) public-
key algorithm, RSA key exchange, SHA-1 (secure hash
algorithm), and SKIPJACK. . . . RSA is commonly used for
handshaking, and RC4 is commonly used for data transmission,
for example.
(¶ [0034].)

Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

7
ANALYSIS
Appellant has the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The Examiner sets forth a
detailed explanation of a reasoned conclusion of anticipation in the
Examiner’s Answer with respect to Appellant’s claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 22-28,
30, 31, and 41 (Ans. 5-8, 12-14), and in particular independent claims 1, 22,
and 31 (Ans. 5-6, 8, 12-14). The Examiner also sets forth a detailed
explanation of a reasoned conclusion of obviousness in the Examiner’s
Answer with respect to Appellant’s claims 10, 11, and 32-38. (Ans. 9-11,
13-15.) Therefore, we look to the Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the
proffered reasoned conclusions. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 1 and Claims 2, 4-9, and 12
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s independent claim 1 as being
anticipated by Selkirk. (Ans. 5-6.) Appellant contends that Selkirk does not
anticipate representative claim 1 (App. Br. 7-15), which calls for, in
pertinent part: (1) an “update generator . . . comprising an encrypting and
decrypting engine;” and (2) “wherein at least a portion of the at least one of
firmware and software in the plurality of electronic devices is encrypted”
(App. Br. 22, Claim App’x., Claim 1). Based on the record before us, we
find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of Appellant’s claim 1.
We agree with Appellant that Selkirk does not disclose the disputed features
of at least (1) an update generator comprising an encrypting and decrypting
engine, and (2) at least a portion of the firmware or software in the electronic
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

8
devices is encrypted for essentially the reasons espoused by Appellant.
(App. Br. 7-15; Reply Br. 2-6).
The Examiner finds that Selkirk discloses each feature of Appellant’s
claim 1, including: “at least one update generator comprising an encrypting
and decrypting engine” (citing ¶ [0017]); and “wherein at least one of the
firmware and software in the plurality of electronic devices and the at least
one update being encrypted” (citing ¶¶ [0009], [0017]). (Ans. 5.)
Additionally, the Examiner responds that
Selkirk discloses that a client/firmware device requests
firmware update from a server and the server generates
encrypted firmware update and provides it to the firmware
device. Therefore, although Selkirk does not disclose in detail
generation of the update, paragraph [0017] provides sufficient
information pertaining to generation of firmware update as
coming from the server which implies that the server is
responsible for generation of the update.
(Ans. 12-13 (citation omitted).)
The Examiner also responds that
The examiner has relied on the Selkirk reference to disclose
securely transmitting encrypted firmware update from server to
client and no decryption of the encrypted firmware update takes
place outside of the firmware device (. . . the firmware update is
a portion of the firmware and software of the electronic device).
Therefore, when the firmware device receives firmware
update/portion of the firmware and software in the electronic
device, the firmware update is in encrypted state prior to
decryption.
(Ans. 12.)
As explained by Appellant, claim 1 includes a limitation requiring “at
least one update generator comprising an encrypting and decrypting engine.”
(App. Br. 11.) Selkirk, on the other hand, describes that “an update to
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

9
firmware may be downloaded . . . . [but,] Selkirk provides no details as to
how the update came to exist, or how the server 106 came into possession of
the update, and certainly fails to describe, teach or suggest that the server
106 generated the update.” (App. Br. 14-15 (see App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br.
5-6).)
As further explained by Appellant, claim 1 recites the limitation of
“wherein at least a portion of the at least one of firmware and software
in the plurality of electronic devices is encrypted” (App. Br. 9); however,
“Selkirk merely discloses that data is sent over an encrypted channel to a
firmware device, where the data is decrypted.” (App. Br. 13; see App. Br.
10-12, 14.) Specifically, Appellant contends that: “a firmware device and a
firmware update are quite different from the firmware itself in an electronic
device” (Reply Br. 3); Selkirk describes “a clear distinction between
firmware and a firmware device” (Reply Br. 4); and “because the file of
Selkirk is decrypted before the firmware device stores the file, and because
Selkirk states that the ‘actual firmware’ is stored in ‘firmware memory
210B,’ Selkirk does not disclose” (Reply Br. 5) the disputed limitation of at
least a portion of the firmware or software being encrypted. “Instead, in
Selkirk, an encrypted file is decrypted before it is stored and can become a
part of the actual firmware” (Reply Br. 5). (See Reply Br. 2-6.)
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Selkirk discloses transferring data to a firmware device over
an encrypted communications channel, that the data may be an update to the
firmware, that the firmware device decrypts the transferred data, and that an
encrypted SSL communications channel “implies” generating encrypted data
and decrypting the encrypted data after transfer completion. (FF 1, 2; see
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

10
Ans. 5-6, 12-13.) We, however, also agree with the Examiner that “Selkirk
does not disclose in detail generation of [a firmware and/or software]
update.” (Ans. 13.) We therefore disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that Selkirk “provides sufficient information pertaining to generation of
firmware update as coming from the server which implies that the server is
responsible for generation of the update.” (Ans. 13.)
Although Selkirk discloses a “client/firmware device request[ing] [a]
firmware update from a server,” we do not agree that “the server generates
[an] encrypted firmware update and provides it to the firmware device.”
(Ans. 13.) We do not readily find any description in Selkirk of the server
actually generating a firmware update or encrypting/decrypting the firmware
update. At most, Selkirk discloses the server encrypting data (a message or
data packet), transferring the encrypted data to a firmware device, and the
firmware device decrypting the data. (See, e.g., Selkirk ¶¶ [0025]-[0026].)
Appellant’s claim 1, however, recites an “update generator . . . comprising
an encrypting and decrypting engine” separate from an update delivery
server, which may include an SSL layer. (See, e.g., Spec. [0008]-[0010];
[0063]-[0065]; Fig. 2.) Thus, we are constrained by the record before us to
agree with Appellant that Selkirk does not disclose at least the disputed
feature of an “update generator . . . comprising an encrypting and decrypting
engine.”
We also agree with the Examiner that Selkirk discloses data transfer
of a firmware update or software over an encrypted SSL communications
channel. (FF 1, 2.) We, however, disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that Selkirk discloses “wherein at least one of the firmware and software in
the plurality of electronic devices and the at least one update being
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

11
encrypted” (Ans. 5), based on Selkirk’s disclosure that “when the firmware
device receives firmware update/portion of the firmware and software in the
electronic device, the firmware update is in encrypted state prior to
decryption” (Ans. 12).
We give claim terminology the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the [S]pecification” in accordance with our mandate that
“claim language should be read in light of the [S]pecification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). We must,
however, avoid importing limitations from Appellant’s Specification.
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.”).
Here, claim 1 recites “a portion of the . . . firmware [or] software in
the . . . electronic devices is encrypted.” Appellant explains that the
firmware or software to be updated is resident in (a part of) the device and
that the update is encrypted/decrypted separately from the firmware. (Spec.
[0060], [0063], [0065].) Appellant also explains (supra) that Selkirk
distinguishes a firmware device from the firmware code itself. (FF 3.)
While we must be mindful of reading in limitations from the Specification,
in view of Appellant’s and Selkirk’s disclosures we disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that Selkirk discloses encrypting a portion of the
firmware itself or a portion of the software resident in the device. At most,
Selkirk discloses the server encrypting data and the firmware device
decrypting the data (data packet) (supra). We do not readily find any
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

12
description in Selkirk of firmware in the device, or any software in the
device being encrypted. An encrypted data packet containing a portion of
firmware or software code, as described by Selkirk, is not equivalent to a
portion of encrypted firmware or software resident in an electronic device,
as required by Appellant’s claim. Thus, we are constrained by the record
before us to agree with Appellant that Selkirk does not disclose at least the
disputed feature of “wherein at least a portion of the at least one of firmware
and software in the plurality of electronic devices is encrypted.”
Appellant’s claims 2, 4-9, and 12 depend on claim 1, and stand with
representative claim 1. Thus, based on the record before us, we find that the
Examiner erred in finding Selkirk discloses each limitation recited in
Appellant’s claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of these claims.
The Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 22-38,
and 30 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s independent claim 22 which calls
for, in pertinent part: (1) a “non-volatile memory . . . comprising . . . a first
in first out (FIFO) memory device;” and (2) “wherein the electronic device
is adapted to update an encrypted portion of at least one of the firmware and
the software application selected for updating, and wherein updating at least
one of the firmware and the software application comprises decrypting the
encrypted portion” (App. Br. 27, Claim App’x., Claim 22). The Examiner
rejects Appellant’s independent claim 22 as being anticipated by Selkirk.
(Ans. 5, 8.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that “claim[s] 22-28 and 30
encompass the same scope as claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 12. Therefore, claims 22-
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

13
28 are rejected based on the same reason set forth above in rejecting claims
1, 2, 4-9 and 12.” (Ans. 8.) Additionally, the Examiner responds that:
Selkirk discloses the firmware memory is connected to internal
bus and provides storage for the actual firmware and is
preferably some kind of write-able non-volatile memory such as
EEPROM, flash ROM and non-volatile RAM (Selkirk: [0024]).
Therefore, although no specific word mentions “FIFO” and
FIFO memory does not appears to be a patentable feature, the
memory device disclosed by Selkirk discloses the hardware
limitation disclosed by appellant. In addition, the claim only
recites of a FIFO memory device but fails to distinguish how
the FIFO is used in relation to updating of firmware.
(Ans. 13-14.)
Appellant contends that Selkirk does not anticipate (nor render
obvious) representative claim 22 (App. Br. 8, 17-18; Reply Br. 6-7.)
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of Appellant’s claim 22. We agree with Appellant that
Selkirk does not disclose the disputed features of at least (1) non-volatile
FIFO memory, and (2) an encrypted portion of at least one of the firmware
and the software application selected for updating for essentially the reasons
espoused by Appellant. (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 6-7.)
We find that the Examiner’s rejection is facially insufficient, and that
the Examiner has failed to present a prima facie anticipation rejection for
claims 22-28 and 30. Even a cursory reading of representative claim 22
demonstrates that the claim has a very different scope from representative
claim 1. The claim is directed to a device, and recites a number of structural
limitations, including a non-volatile FIFO memory. We disagree with the
Examiner that Selkirk discloses such a memory. In particular, we disagree
with the Examiner that Selkirk’s disclosure of “firmware memory . . .
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

14
[which] is preferably some kind of write-able non-volatile memory such as
EEPROM, flash ROM and non-volatile RAM” (Ans. 13) is equivalent to a
non-volatile FIFO memory. Although Selkirk describes non-volatile
memory, the disclosed EEPROM, flash ROM, and non-volatile RAM are all
addressable memory (e.g., RAM (Random Access Memory)), not FIFO
memory. Moreover, as explained with respect to claim 1 (supra), Selkirk
does not disclose encrypted firmware or software. Thus, we are constrained
by the record before us to agree with Appellant that Selkirk does not disclose
at least the disputed feature of (1) a “non-volatile memory . . . comprising
. . . a first in first out (FIFO) memory device;” and (2) “wherein the
electronic device is adapted to update an encrypted portion of at least one of
the firmware and the software application selected for updating, and wherein
updating at least one of the firmware and the software application comprises
decrypting the encrypted portion.”
Appellant’s claims 23-28 and 30 depend on claim 22, and stand with
representative claim 22. Thus, based on the record before us, we find that
the Examiner erred in finding Selkirk discloses each limitation recited in
Appellant’s claims 22-28 and 30. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of these claims.
Arguments Concerning the Examiner’s Rejection of
Representative Claim 31 and Claim 41
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s independent claim 31 which calls
for, in pertinent part, “building a firmware image to be encrypted, the
firmware image comprising a plurality of components; and encrypting the
components before assembling the components into an encrypted firmware
image” (App. Br. 29, Claim App’x., Claim 31). The Examiner rejects
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

15
Appellant’s independent claim 31 as being anticipated by Selkirk. (Ans. 5,
8.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that “the firmware image compris[es] a
plurality of components[ ] and encrypting the components before assembling
the component[s] into an encrypted firmware image (Selkirk: [0034]:
encryption utilizes RC4/symmetric stream cipher that performs encryption
using keystream through bit-wise operation so that components of firmware
update encrypted before assembly).” (Ans. 8.) Additionally, the Examiner
responds that:
Selkirk discloses that firmware update is subject to encryption
and the encryption preferably uses RC4 cipher/stream cipher or
DES/block cipher that encrypts data by performing encryption
block by block/component by component (Selkirk: [0034]).
Therefore, the components of firmware update are encrypted
prior to being assembled into an update packet.
(Ans. 14.)
Appellant contends that Selkirk’s disclosure of handshaking and/or
data transmission cipher suites (e.g., RC4, and DES) utilized in an SSL
channel does not disclose “‘block by block’ or ‘component by component’
encryption” (Reply Br. 8), and in any event does not disclose “encrypting
the components before assembling the components into an encrypted
firmware image” as required by claim 31.
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of Appellant’s claim 31. We agree with Appellant that
Selkirk does not disclose the disputed features, and that the Examiner’s
rejection is insufficient to present a prima facie case for anticipation.
Specifically, Selkirk only describes handshaking and/or data transmission
cipher suites (e.g., RC4, and DES) utilized in an SSL encrypted
communications channel. (FF 4.) We do not readily find any description of
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

16
“block by block” encryption as asserted by the Examiner (Ans. 14). To the
extent Examiner asserts such block by block encryption is inherent in
Selkirk’s description of SSL cipher suites, we find this to be an unsupported
finding of inherency. Moreover, Appellant’s claim 31 does not recite
encrypting the data packet including the firmware update (see discussion of
claim 1, supra) using component by component encryption. Rather, claim
31 recites encrypting components before assembling them into an encrypted
firmware image – it is this encrypted image that is transmitted (e.g., as an
encrypted data packet over an SSL channel) (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ [0064]-
[0065]; [0082], [0085]). Thus, we are constrained by the record before us to
agree with Appellant that Selkirk does not disclose at least the disputed
feature of “encrypting the components before assembling the components
into an encrypted firmware image” as recited in representative claim 31.
Appellant’s claim 41 depends on claim 31, and stands with
representative claim 31. Thus, based on the record before us, we find that
the Examiner erred in finding Selkirk discloses each limitation recited in
Appellant’s claims 31 and 41. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of these claims.
The Examiner’s Rejection of Claims 10, 11
and 32-38 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner rejects Appellant’s dependent claims 10, 11, and 32-38
as being unpatentable over the combination of Selkirk and Nachenberg.
(Ans. 9-11; see note 5 (supra).) Claims 10 and 11 depend on claim 1.
Claims 32-38 depend on claim 31. For the reasons explained with respect to
claim 1 and claim 31 (supra), we find Selkirk does not disclose, teach, or
suggest each feature of these claims. Nachenberg does not cure the
Appeal 2009-006597
Application 10/813,212

17
deficiencies of Selkirk. Therefore, based on the record before us, we find
that the Examiner erred in finding Selkirk and Nachenberg would have
collectively taught or suggested each limitation recited in Appellant’s claims
10, 11, and 32-38. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of these claims.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
4-9, 12, 22-28, 30, 31, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10,
11, and 32-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 22-28, 30,
31, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, and 32-38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528