BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Dell Products LP (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o22109 (27 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o22109.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o22109 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22109
Summary
The invention provides a method to validate the configuration of hardware devices in computer systems and networks and to notify a user of possible compatibility issues. It does this by providing a “supported device information matrix” on each hardware device, which contains information about which devices (e.g. models) that it is compatible with. The preferred embodiments relate to storage systems such as a Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) or a Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) storage system. In use, the controller scans for attached hardware devices, typically during a power-on-self-test (POST) or boot-up sequence or when the configuration has been modified, to determine the location of each device that it can see. The controller then requests the matrix from each identified device and uses this information to determine whether the device will operate correctly in its current location. The user is notified of any compatibility issues that are identified.
Following the structured four-step approach of Aerotel in the light of the clarification provided by Symbian, the hearing officer found that the contribution made by the invention is an exercise in information gathering and information processing that lies wholly within the computer program exclusion. Having established this, the hearing officer then found there was no technical contribution present and the application was refused under Section 18(3).
