10730435 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2012)

Ex Parte Chandrasekhar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 25, 2012

10730435 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BABU K. CHANDRASEKHAR, SHAOFEI CHEN, TIMOTHY W. COX, and STEVEN A. GRIGSBY ____________ Appeal 2010-003026 Application 10/730,435 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20 which are all of the claims remaining in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-003026 Application 10/730,435 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to an improved method and apparatus for storing and disseminating software using a cache memory on a factory server used in the manufacturing of information handling systems. (Spec. 1.) Claims Claim 1, which is the only independent claim and illustrative of the invention, is reproduced below with key disputed language emphasized: 1. A system for automated storing of software on an information handling system, comprising: a distribution server configured to receive a software application file; a repack and script regeneration server coupled to said distribution server, said repack and script regeneration server configured to: disassemble said software application file into a plurality of individual program files; generate an index of said individual program files; identify and remove redundant program files; generate a composite program file library containing a plurality of said program files; and generate scripts for automatically controlling the transfer of said program files to an information handling system; and a download server configured to store said program files on a storage medium on a target information handling system. Appeal 2010-003026 Application 10/730,435 3 Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence: Feinman US 6,075,943 Jun. 13, 2000 Tso US 6,088,803 Jul. 11, 2000 Jain US 2004/0019888 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Feinman and Jain. The Examiner also rejected claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feinman, Jain, and Tso. Appellants’ Contention Appellants contend, inter alia, that Jain fails to disclose the limitation of “identify and remove redundant program files” as recited in independent claim 1. (Br. 5.) ISSUE Based upon our review of the record and Appellants’ contentions, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal: Did the Examiner err in determining that the cited reference discloses the limitation, “identify and remove redundant program files,” as recited in independent claim 1?1 1 Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as a group and present no separate arguments for the dependent claims (Br. 4-6). We accept that grouping and treat claims 1-20 as standing or falling together with the representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Appeal 2010-003026 Application 10/730,435 4 ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants’ argument that the cited reference fails to disclose the claimed “identify and remove redundant program files.” (See Br. 5.) The Examiner asserts (Ans. 11-12) that the following paragraphs in Jain teach removing files: [0025] One example of a generator system 220 employs the following steps: . . . . [0034] 9. Removing duplicate file entries; . . . . [0036]11. Removing duplicates from conflicting files; [0037]12. Removing conflicting files from the main list; [0038] 13. Removing excess processed files. (Jain, ¶¶ [0025-0038]). However, it is clear from the context of the omitted paragraphs that Jain is referring to deleting file entries, i.e. links or pointers, not actual files. (App. Br. 4-5; Jain, ¶¶ [0008; 0025-0038].) Jain relates to a method of creating a virtual map with links to files necessary for a software installation. (Jain, ¶ [0008].) For example, paragraph [0020] states: As shown in FIG. 3, . . . [, t]he generating program 220 creates a map that points to each of the necessary data sources 212. . . . The generating program 220 will look for any redundancies and remove pointers [in the map] to redundant files. . . . What is left is virtual map 226 to all of the data files 228 necessary to perform an install of the software. . . . Paragraph [0036] recites “[r]emoving duplicates from conflicting files.” However, the specification describes the process of removing “conflicting files” as follows: “All conflicts between files pointed to by any links of the plurality of links are detected and listed in a conflict report. The links listed in the conflict report are removed from the primary directory, which results in the virtual map.” (Jain, ¶ [0008].) Paragraph [0038] recites Appeal 2010-003026 Application 10/730,435 5 “[r]emoving excess processed files.” However, even if this paragraph refers to removing actual files, it is unclear from the context whether “excess processed files” are actual redundant files rather than simply files that are no longer needed after the installation. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the cited reference discloses the step of “identify and remove redundant program files,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. 2 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED msc 2 In the event of further prosecution we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether it would have also been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to delete actual files, given Jain’s disclosure of deleting the links to file, in view of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, any of the references of record, and/or other references found by the Examiner.