Application No. I l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No.: 3 I436/43993
`
`consistent with the Figure 2 device being able to transfer files of digital data in response to
`
`commands from at least one software driver that is provided with the PC when it is initially
`
`purchased by an end user. One example of the claimed “parameter” is the [act that the ADGPD
`
`may be regarded by a PC to which it is connected as a mass storage device such as a hard disk
`
`drive, which signals to the PC that hard disk drive driver software should be utilized for file
`
`transfer purposes. The new claims cover but are not limited to this structure.
`
`A camera that would be known today as a “web cam,” which merely provides a video
`
`input to be shown on 21 monitor afier the camera has been operativcly coupled thereto, is one
`
`example of a product that does not include structure corresponding to the above—quoted claim
`
`language. A specific example ofsuch a “web cam” is shown in the Kerigan patent, where a
`
`camera sends an “input” (current video data) to a PC so that the PC can change the “display
`
`data” (column 3, lines 30-35 of Kerigan).
`
`in contrast to the claimed invention, it is not the
`
`processor in the Kerigan patent that causes the camera to be recognized by the PC, it is the
`
`monitor processor that sends the Dl:‘DlD signal to the PC.
`
`Fifth, another aspect of the mulri-use automatic processor claim feature is that the at least
`
`one parameter is sent to the MP1 of the PC
`
`“before a time when the PC is able to receive data tiles that are transferred to it
`from the ADGPD.”
`
`This claim feature reads on, for example, the device shown in Figure 2 of the instant application.
`
`In accordance with this exemplary embodiment, the Figure 2 device is adapted to provide the PC
`
`with a response to one or more device identification inquiry signals. When the PC sends such
`
`signals out to a peripheral device, the PC is not yet ready to have files transferred to it from that
`
`17
`
`401
`
`Apple 1002 (Part 2 of 2)
`U.S. Pat. 9,189,437
`
`

`
`Application No. ll/467;O92
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 3 O, 2008
`
`Docket No; 31436/43993
`
`peripheral device.
`
`instead, after the PC receives and processes the at least one parameter
`
`regarding the Figure 2 device, the PC is then able to select at least one software drivers that are
`
`used to handle file transfers from the Figure 2 device. The new claims cover but are not limited
`
`to this exemplary embodiment.
`
`The camera disclosed in the Hashimoto patent is one example of a product that does not
`
`include structure corresponding to the above~quoted claim language. As discussed in greater
`
`detail hereinafter, it is impossible for the Hashimoto camera to be able to send signals to a PC to
`
`which it is connected before the PC sends the camera a DTR signal, which indicates that the PC.
`
`is ready for camera related communication with the camera. At that time, the PC already has
`
`recognized how to communicate with the camera.
`
`It should be emphasized that the new claims cover but are not limited to the above-
`
`described embodiments of the claimed invention that are illustrated in the specification (ag. ,
`
`DSP 1300 being a single digital signal processor chip having a single CPU that directly causes
`
`the at least one parameter to be sent and that controls at least the processing of analog data that is
`
`generated). Rather, it is the applicant’s specific intention that the new claims cover all modes of
`
`practicing the claimed invention, not just the above-described exemplary embodiments. For
`
`example, the new claims should be interpreted to cover an “ADGPD processor” that is formed
`
`by, for example, a cluster of two or more single processors (cg. , digital signal processor(s) or
`
`microprocessor(s) each having a single CPU and program memory) that are formed on the same
`
`or different wafers of a semi-conductor material such as silicon. Consistent with this is the fact
`
`that col. 8, lines 66-67 of Hashimoto state that the camera CPU 23 (Figure 8) “may either be a
`
`18
`
`402
`
`

`
`Application No. l l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket f\lo.: 31436/43993
`
`single chip tag, a single microprocessor] or be composed of multiple components.”
`
`The Patentability lssues
`
`The October ls‘ Office Action identifies four different prior art references:
`
`the
`
`llashimoto patent, the Smith patent, the Kerigan patent, and U 8. Patent No. 5>724,934 to
`
`Shinohara (the “Shinohara patent”),
`
`it is respectfully submitted that, for a number of different
`
`reasons, any purported combination of these references does not teach or suggest, for example,
`
`the mulli~u,s'e automatic processor claim feature and, therefore, that the new claims should be
`
`found to be patentable over any such purported combination. An analysis of exemplary reasons
`
`why each patent does not teach the mzrlli-use automatic processor claim feature follows after a
`
`brief discussion of four fallacies in the Office Action, the recognition of any one or more of
`
`which should lead one to the conclusion that the new claims should not be found to be subject to
`
`rejection on the grounds stated in the Office Action.
`
`The Rejections Fail Because Prior Art “Plug and Play” Cameras
`Require User intervention Via A PC Such As \_7[_i_t_h“User Loaded Software
`
`In connection with an appeal of an adverse decision in this case, the Federal Circuit
`
`should determine whether or not substantial evidence supports the factual findings underlying the
`
`legal conclusion on the non~obviousness issues. In re John B. Sullivan and Findlay E. Russell,
`
`498 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007). One factual finding on which all of the obviousness
`
`rejections are based is that the Kerigan patent teaches a camera having “plug and play
`
`functionality” that purportedly allows a user to transfer pictures from the camera to a PC without
`
`requiring a user to load software onto the PC. Because this factual finding is not supported by
`
`substantial evidence as discussed in greater detail hereinafter, it is respectfully submitted that any
`
`19
`
`403
`
`

`
`Application No. ll/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`Decernber 30, 2008
`
`Docket No: 31436/43993
`
`rejection of the new claims on the grounds stated in the Office Action would be overturned on
`
`appeal and, therefore, that the new claims should be found to he patentable and in condition for
`
`allowance.
`
`Kerigan’s purported teachings about the applicability of“plug and play functionality” to
`
`a camera are inconsistent with information that was publicly available before the March 4, 1997
`
`earliest filing date of the new claims. For example, Exliibit A hereto is an article dated April l5,
`
`1996 entitled “Photography Goes .
`
`.
`
`. Under $1,000” which concerns the Canon Powcrshot 600
`
`digital camera. On page 2 of the article, it is stated that the camera includes “Plug and Play
`
`supportz”
`
`“Powershot 600 is compatible with Microsoft Windows 95 and the
`cameras Plug and Play support ensures easy image integration with Windows
`95 applications.” (emphasis added).
`
`The capitalization of the words plug and play is a reference to the Powershot 600 camera
`
`complying with the then existing Plug and Play standards. If the “Plug and Play” standards truly
`
`did allow pictures or video to be transfened from a camera to a PC without any user intervention
`
`by means of the PC (e. g., user loaded software) as alleged in the Office Action, then the article
`
`should not reference a need for any such user intervention. However, this is not the case. The
`
`article clearly states further down on page 2 that the camera “comes with a selection of software
`
`including a Twain driver.” If this software is not loaded on a PC, then no pictures can be
`
`transferred to the PC from the Powcrshot 600 camera. See, for example, page 17 of the manual
`
`for the Canon Powershot 600 camera that is identified in the IDS submitted herewith, which
`
`states,
`
`404
`
`

`
`Application No. 1 l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No: 314361943993
`
`“You should install the software application [on the disk sold with the
`camera] that enables you to transfer images to your computer and to work with
`your images.”
`
`Because this information stands in direct contrast to the Office Action’s statements about
`
`Kerigan, the Office Action’s factual findings about Kerigatfs purported camera with “plug and
`
`play functionality” are clearly erroneous, not supported by substantial evidence, and would not
`
`be affirmed on appeal.
`
`The obviousness rejections also are based on a mischaracterization of a citation to
`
`Kcrigan (column 6, lines 3-10), The second sentence of this portion of Kerigan states that “‘[t]his
`
`allows such features as plug and play interface components and video drivers” (emphasis added).
`
`For the Office Action’s contentions about Keri gan to be correct, the word “this” should reference
`
`some structure or capability of a camera that allows it to have the purported “plug and play
`
`functionality.” However, this is not the case. “This” references the specific structure of the
`
`Kerigan interface which can vary based upon the “actual connector used.” As discussed in
`
`greater detail hereinafter in the patentabiiity section of this document, a user is required to load
`
`interface enabling software onto the PC so that the PC can be informed about what signals are
`
`present on the pins of the “actual connector used.” The “plug and play fiinctionality” of the
`
`Kerigan camera obviously does not allow a user to use a camera without user intervention by
`
`means of the PC because, for example, the portion of Kerigan cited in the Office Action
`
`references a need for user loaded interface enabling software. For this reason alone, any
`
`rejections of the new claims on the grounds stated in the Office Action would not be supported
`
`by substantial evidence and, therefore, would be overturned on appeal.
`
`21
`
`405
`
`

`
`Application No. l l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No: 31436/43993
`
`Other information contradicts the Office Action’s factual findings about Kerigan. The
`
`Quicktlam by Connectix is one example of a camera that was commercially available before
`
`March 4, 1997, and that could be used in the manner taught by Kerigan to provide video input.
`
`A copy of a manual for a QuickCam camera is included in the IDS tiled herewith. Page 3-7 of
`
`the manual states that the installation disk provided with the QuickCarn camera copies two
`
`applications onto a user’s hard drive, “Quicl<movie” and “Quickpict.” These end user added
`
`applications allowed a user to record and store both movies and still images, respectively. A user
`
`loaded software requirement for these purposes belies the Office Action’s contentions about the
`
`camera “plug and play functionality” purportedly taught in Kerigan. For this additional reason,
`
`for example, the Office Aetion’s factual findings about the applicability of “plug and play”
`
`cameras in Kerigan are clearly erroneous, not supported by substantial evidence, and would not
`
`be afflrmed on appeal.
`
`Moreover, the QuickCam camera cannot be used for video capture purposes without
`
`significant user intervention by means of the PC.
`
`In this regard, a publication entitled “Mini
`
`FAQ Again” dated September 8, l996 is being submitted herewith. On page 3, the article
`
`identifies “the steps to take to install a QuickCam with Windows 95." As one example, a user
`
`must “run the QuickCam installer” program, access the advanced section of the Windows 95
`
`control panel for multimedia, double click on the “Video Capture Devices” icon, double click on
`
`the QuiekCam icon, make sure that the “use the video capture device” choice is selected, and
`
`then restart Windows 95. User intervention of this sort is the antithesis of the muItz'—use
`
`automatic processor claim feature. For this reason, for example, the alleged camera “plug and
`
`22
`
`406
`
`

`
`Application No. l 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No.: 31436./43993
`
`play functionality” of Kerigaii cannot mean what the Office Action says that it does and,
`
`therefore, the rejections stated in the Office Action are not supported by substantial evidence as
`
`required by In re John B, Sullivan and Hndlay E. Russell.
`
`Publicly Available lnfoigmamtion Fmm The Assignee Of llashimoto Contradicts The Factual
`Findings Underlying The Rgectioiis Stated In The Office Action
`
`Exhibit B hereto is a copy of an article dated February ll, 1997 concerning Rieoh’s
`
`“award winning” RDC-2 digital camera, together with a portion of the manual for the RDC—2
`
`camera. While the article describes the cable of the RDC—2 camera as having a “plug ‘)1 play
`
`serial connection cable,” the RDC—2 manual clearly states that “Ricoh Utility Software” is
`
`required for “file transmission to a PC” (emphasis added). These documents are further
`
`confirmation that the Office Action’s factual findings about Kerigan allegedly teaching a camera
`
`having “plug and play functionality” with no user—loaded software required are clearly erroneous
`
`and not supported by substantial evidence.
`
`These documents are especially significant because they were made public by the same
`
`company to which Hashimoto is assigned, Rieoh Company, Ltd, well after the Hashimoto patent
`
`was originally filed in Japan. lf pictures truly could be transferred to a PC from a digital camera
`
`without a user having to load software onto the PC as alleged in the Office Action, then surely
`
`Ricoh would be publicizing that at least one of its cameras had that capability.
`
`instead of acting
`
`in a manner consistent with what is alleged in the Office Action, Ricoh instead was actively
`
`promoting its “PhotoStudio” user—loaded software that, as stated in the February 24, 1997 article
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C, includes “a ‘direct connection’ feature that allows users to upload
`
`or download images directly to and from the camera.” The Exhibits B and C documents belie
`
`23
`
`407
`
`

`
`Application No. l l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No.: 3 l 436r’43993
`
`the Office Action’s factual findings about Kerigan allegedly teaching a camera having a
`
`purported “plug and play functionality." For at least this reason, it is respectfully submitted that
`
`any rejection of the new claims on the grounds stated in the Office Action would not be
`
`supported by substantial evidence, and would be overturned on appeal.
`
`The Rejections Fail Because The Qffiee Actions Factual Findings About Kerigan Are Not
`Consistent With Pt1bl_i,c;l_y,Available Information About The “Plug And Pia;/_’,_’,_Standards
`
`Submitted in connection with the IDS filed herewith are portions of a book published in
`
`1995 that is entitled “Plug And Play System Architecture.” The book provides a user with an
`
`overview of the then existing plug and play technology. For the Office Action’s factual finding
`
`about Keri gan’s camera with “plug and play functionality” to be correct, there should be some
`
`reference in the book about how a digital camera can include “plug and play functionality.”
`
`However, this is not the case. As can be seen. for example, from the index of the book that is
`
`submitted herewith, the words “digital camera” or “camera” are not referenced anywvhere in the
`
`book. For this reason alone, the Office Action’s factual finding that Kerigan’s camera can be
`
`used without 21 having to load software onto a PC is not supported by substantial evidence, is
`
`clearly erroneous, and would not be affirmed on appeal.
`
`The Rejections Fail For The Additional Reason That Hashimoto’s Figure 14 References
`A PC ’s Ability To Send A DTR Signal That Is ProvideWc_l,BV User Loaded Software
`
`Figure l4 of Hashimoto is a flow chart that illustrates the steps of the process by which a
`
`Hashimoto camera communicates with an external device such as a PC. All of the rejections
`
`stated in the Office Action are based on the factual finding that these program steps do not teach
`
`or suggest that a user must load software onto the PC for file transfer purposes (see, page 7, the
`
`24
`
`408
`
`

`
`Application No. l 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No.: 31436/43993
`
`end of paragraph 4). As this is not the case at least for the reasons discussed in greater detail
`
`hereinafter, any rejection of the new claims on the grounds stated in the Office Action would not
`
`be supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, would be overturned on appeal if such
`
`rejections were made. An analysis in support of this conclusion follows.
`
`Column 51-65 of Hashirnoto states that, in step 304 of Figure 14, the Hashimoto camera
`
`detects whether it is connected to a PC by the camera detecting a Data Terminal Ready signal of
`
`an RS-232 protocol (or some other equivalent signal of another cornmunications protocol) that is
`
`sent to it from a PC. The Office Action’s factual findings assume that, during the relevant time
`
`frame, PCs have the ability to send such signals to indicate a PCS readiness to have picture files
`
`transferred to it from a digital camera. However, this is not the case.
`
`Identified in the IDS sent herewith are a number of manuals and other spec sheets for
`
`various PCs made by Compaq and Apple that were available for purchase by consumers before
`
`March 4, 1997. None of these documents re ference that a computer, when initially sold to an
`
`end user, contained software on them that allowed the computers to send a DTR or other
`
`equivalent signal to a PC to indicate the PC’s picture transfer readiness. As such, it is
`
`respectfully submitted that the ability to send these signals was given to a PC by a user loading
`
`software onto the PC, which is the antithesis of the multi—use automatic processor claim feature.
`
`Because this information stands in direct contrast to what is alleged in the Office Action, it is
`
`respectfully submitted that the Office /\ction’s factual findings about Hashimoto’s purported
`
`lack of end user added software is clearly erroneous, not supported by substantial evidence, and
`
`would not be affirmed on appeal.
`
`409
`
`

`
`Application No. l 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No: 314361113993
`
`Moreover, it appears that the standard used in the Office Action to determine whether or
`
`not Hashimoto requires user loaded software is whether or not Hashimoto contains a specific
`
`reference to a user loaded software requirement. The relevant issue is not whether Hashirnoto
`
`contains a specific reference to a user loaded software requirement. Instead, the appropriate and
`
`legally correct test is whether or not one of ordinary skill would understand from the text and
`
`drawings of lrlashimoto if user loaded software were required. As discussed above, and as
`
`further explained hereinafter, Hashimoto contains a number of explicit teachings that would lead
`
`one of ordinary skill to understand that user loaded software is required. Because this stands in
`
`direct contrast to the (r)l‘l‘ice /\ction’s factual findings about Hashimoto, any rejection of the new
`
`claims on the grounds stated in the Office Action would not be supported by substantial
`
`evidence, would be clearly erroneous, and would be overturned on appeal.
`
`The Claims Arelfiatentable Over Hashimoto
`
`Regarding the Hashimoto patent, please note that one aspect of the nmlri-use automatic
`
`processor claim feature is an “automatic recognition process” with which the ADGPD processor
`
`is involved. In accordance with this aspect of the multi-use automatic processor claim feature, at
`
`least one parameter is sent to the MP1 of the PC before the PC is able to have files transferred to
`
`it from the ADGPD to which the PC is connected.
`
`Hashimoto teaches that, when the PC sends the DTR signal to the Hashirnoto camera, the
`
`PC is ready to have files transferred to it from the camera. It is impossible for the CPU inside
`
`the Hashimoto camera to communicate with the PC before the PC sends the DTR signal because
`
`the signal level conversion circuit that connects the PC to the camera is in “standby mode” until
`
`26
`
`410
`
`

`
`Application No. 1 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No; 31436/“ 3993
`
`the DTR signal is received (col. 12, line 65 o col. 13, line 14). Consistent with this is the fact
`
`that Hashimoto clearly states that it’s CPU “monitors a data terminal ready (DTR) signal of an
`
`RS-232” or equivalent signal protocol (col. 10, lines 41 -65) (emphasis added). This stands in
`
`direct contrast to the ozulliluse automatic processor claim feature which requires that a multi—use
`
`automatic processor be involved with an “automatic recognition” process as well as at least
`
`initiating a “data generation” process. For this reason, for example, Hashimoto does not
`
`disclose, teach or suggest at least the nzulti-use automatic processor claim feature and, therefore,
`
`the new claims should be found to be patentable over Hashimoto by itself.
`
`The Hashimoto patent does not teach or suggest the multi-use automatic processor claim
`
`feature for other reasons. For example, while the new claims require the automatic recognition
`
`process take place “without any type of user intervention at any time by means of the PC,”
`
`portions of Hashimoto not previously discussed with the Examiner evidence that Hashimoto
`
`requires user loaded applications software for at least three different reasons. For this additional
`
`reason, for example, the new claims should be found to be patentable over Hashimoto by itself.
`
`First, the hriefdescription of Figure 16 of Hashimoto states that Figure 16 is a flowchart
`
`that illustrates the process by which the Hashimoto camera is able to receive information from an
`
`“external device.” Col. 10, lines 42-43 of Hashimoto state that one example of such an external
`
`device is a “computer” or PC. Step 340 of Figure 16 states that the Hashimoto camera receives
`
`“combined image and audio files" from the PC. It is respectfully submitted that, based on the
`
`references of record, no PC commercially available on or before the earliest priority date (March
`
`4, 1997) included the capability of sending “combined image and audio files” when initially
`
`27
`
`411
`
`

`
`Application No. l 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No; 31436/43993
`
`purchased by an end user. Rather, any such capability had to have been provided by a suitable
`
`application that an end user would load onto the PC.
`
`It is noted that the Office Action does not
`
`make any showing that any PC during any time frame had the ability to send such “combined
`
`image and audio files” without application level software. For these reasons, for example, it is
`
`respectfully submitted that the ability of sending these types of files is provided by a user loaded
`
`applications program, which is the antithesis of the mulri—u.s'e automatic pmccmor feature.
`
`Second, column 7, lines 50-55 of I-lashimoto state that various types of “information”
`
`(eg, “exposure controlling information) are created by the CPU 23 shown in Figure 8, and that
`
`automatic “control of the camera is performed using this information.” One of the devices that
`
`can “control” the Hashirnoto camera is a PC. Hashimoto contains no disclosure whatsoever that
`
`a PC can “control” the Hashimoto camera by means of the “exposure controlling information”
`
`without the use of an end user added applications program.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that,
`
`based on the references of record, no PC that was commercially available on or before the
`
`earliest priority date (March 4, 1997) had this ability without the utilization of end user added
`
`software.
`
`Third, column 7, lines 57-62 of Hashirnoto state that the information referenced in the
`
`immediately preceding paragraph can be used “when monitoring the camera in order to
`
`determine if an abnormal state exists.” A PC is an example of a device that may be used to
`
`monitor the Hashimoto camera in this manner.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that, based on the
`
`references of record, no PC that was commercially available on or before the earliest priority
`
`date (March 4, 1997) had the ability to “monitor” a PC in this manner without also requiring end
`
`28
`
`412
`
`

`
`Application No. l l/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`user added software.
`
`Docket No; 31436/43993
`
`Smith Does Not Provide The Missing Teachings
`
`The Smith patent does not provide the teachings missing from Hashimoto to render the
`
`new claims obvious fora number of different reasons. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that
`
`the Examiner’s comments about the “plug and play peripheral” purportedly disclosed in Smith’s
`
`background are correct, Smith does not disclose, teach or suggest that such a device would have
`
`a processor that is able to initiate the claimed “data generation process” in which, for example, a
`
`sensor generates analog data and the generated analog data is processed. There is no evidence in
`
`Smith that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to take the programming of the “single use”
`
`processor arguably disclosed in Smith and apply it to Hashimoto’s processor that is not capable
`
`of being involved in the automatic recognition process since it is impossible for it to send signals
`
`to the PC during the relevant time frame. Smith simply does not teach a physical component that
`
`can be inserted or programmed into the Hashimoto camera to render the new claims obvious and,
`
`therefore, Smith does not disclose, teach or suggest an aspect of the multzluse automatic
`
`processor claim feature of the new claims that is missing from Hashimoto. For this reason alone,
`
`for example, the new claims should be found to be patentable over a purported combination of
`
`Hashimoto and Smith.
`
`Smith does not provide the teachings missing from Hashimoto for at least the following
`
`additional reason. As discussed above, the mullzluse automatic processor claim feature requires
`
`that “at least one parameter regarding the ADGPD” be sent to an MP1 of a PC “without any type
`
`of user intervention at any time by means of the PC.” The purported Smith device is not capable
`
`29
`
`413
`
`

`
`Application No. 1 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No; 31436/43993
`
`of generating files of digitized analog data and, therefore, is not an “analog data generating and
`
`processing device." As such, the purported Smith device is incapable of automatically sending at
`
`least one parameter “regarding the ADGPD” because it is not an “ADGPD.” For at least this
`
`additional reason, Smith does not disclose, teach or suggest at least one aspect of the multi-use
`
`automatic processor claim feature missing from Hashimoto and, therefore, the new claims
`
`should be found to be patentablc over a purported combination ol‘Hashimoto and Smith.
`
`It should be emphasized, however, that, by making this argument, no legitimate basis is
`
`provided to read subject matter into any claim that does not specifically recite relevant claim
`
`language. As one example, it is the applicant’s specific intention that it is not proper to read the
`
`subject matter of dependent claim 199 (which recites that the parameter “does not indicate that
`
`the ADGPD includes the sensor”) into independent claim l83 from which it depends.
`
`Kerigan Does Not Provide [he Missing Teacliitrgs
`
`The Keri gan patent does not provide the teachings missing from either Hashimoto or
`
`Smith to render the amended claims obvious for a number of reasons. First, as discussed above,
`
`neither Hashimoto nor Smith disclose, teach or suggest the multzluse automatic processor claim
`
`feature which requires that “at least one parameter regarding the ADGPD” he sent to an M Pl of a
`
`PC “without any type of user intervention at any time by means ofthe PC.” In contrast to this,
`
`the camera disclosed in Kerigan is not involved in identifying itself to the PC. Rather, col. 3,
`
`lines 49 of Kerigan clearly states that the “display device” (and not the camera) “will at this
`
`time send a digital extended display identification (DEDID) to host device” that “provides the
`
`host information on the display device’s functional capabilities” and interface capabilities.” This
`
`30
`
`414
`
`

`
`Application No. ll/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No; 31436/43993
`
`means that it is the display device, and not any processor inside of the Kerigan camera, that
`
`sends the DEDID signal to the PC and, therefore, that any processor inside of the camera is only
`
`capable ofa single use » the provision of streaming Video data to a PC.
`
`In View of" the foregoing,
`
`the processor inside of the Kerigan camera is not a multi-use automatic processor, and is
`
`incapable of causing at least one parameter to be automatically sent to the PC. For at least this
`
`reason, for example, the new claims should be found to be patentable over a purported
`
`combination of Keri gan, Smith and Hashimoto.
`
`Second, an aspect of the mulrzluse automatic processor claim feature that is missing from
`
`both Hashimoto and Smith is that at least one parameter “regarding the ADGPD” and that is
`
`“consistent with the ADGPD being capable of transferring tiles of digital data in response to
`
`commands from the at least one software driver” be sent to the PC.
`
`In direct contrast to this, the
`
`camera disclosed in Kerigan merely is what is known today as a “web cam” as implied by
`
`Kerigan Table l referring to “video in” in which currently streaming video is provided to a PC.
`
`Such cameras do not have the capability of transferring files of digital data to the PC without an
`
`end user loaded applications program. Consistent with this is the fact that Kerigan references the
`
`use of‘“video drivers” (column 6, line 10) that are not operative to transfer picture files from a
`
`camera to a PC. For at least this additional reason, for example, the new claims should be found
`
`to be patentable over the purported combination stated in the Office Action.
`
`Third, an aspect of the mulnluse automatic processor claim feature that is missing from
`
`both Hashimoto and Smith is one or more instructions sets are executed to cause a parameter
`
`“regarding the ADGPD” to be sent “without any type of user intervention at any time by means
`
`31
`
`415
`
`

`
`Application No. l 1/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No.: 31436/43993
`
`of the PC.” This claim language means that, for example, a user does not have to load any
`
`software onto the PC for file transfer enabling purposes from an ADGPD to a PC. On the other
`
`hand, a user must load interface enabling software onto a PC to which a Kerigan interface is
`
`coupled at least for the reasons discussed in the following paragraph.
`
`Kerigan teaches that any number of different connectors can be used to implement the
`
`“interface" that is disclosed and claimed in Kerigan. See, for example, column 5, lines 45—46 of
`
`Kerigan which specify that the “mechanical physical level can be configured in several ways.”
`
`As such, there is no standard set of pins contained inside a connector that can be accessed in a
`
`known way by a standard program that is provided with a PC when it is sold to an end user
`
`during the relevant time frame (before March 4, 1997). To allow the Kerigan interface to be
`
`used with a particular PC that an end user may have, the end user is required to load interface
`
`enabling software onto the PC which is “configured to access the signals” on the actual
`
`connector that is utilized in a particular embodiment of the Kerigan interface (see col. 5, lines 47-
`
`51 of Kerigan). A user loaded software requirement of this sort is the antithesis of the multi—use
`
`automatic processor claim feature that is not taught by either Hashimoto or Smith.
`
`Moreover, the (i)ftice Aetion’s contention that Kerigan purportedly provides a basis to
`
`read Smith’s alleged teachings into Hashiinoto is inconsistent with the fact that products
`
`commercially available before March 4, 1997 that are capable of functioning as the Kerigan
`
`camera require a user to load camera enabling software onto a PC. One such camera is the
`
`QuickCam by Connectix. As discussed previously in this preliminary amendment, a user is
`
`required to load a “Quickmovie” and “Quiekpict” applications onto a PC in order to be able to
`
`416
`
`

`
`Application No. 11/467,092
`Preliminary Amendment
`December 30, 2008
`
`Docket No: 31436/43993
`
`use the QuiekCam to record movies or still images. Moreover, and as discussed previously, at
`
`least significant user intervention by means of the PC is required in order to allow a user to use
`
`the Quicl<Carn camera for video capture purposes. A user intervention requirement (cg, user
`
`loaded software) o I“ this sort is the antithesis of the nrzulti-use automatic processor claim feature
`
`that is missing from both Hashimoto and Smith. For this reason alone, for example, the new
`
`claims should be found to be patentable ove