Ex Parte Neuman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2012

10326863 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL NEUMAN and DOMINIQUE VICARD
____________

Appeal 2009-013394
Application 10/326,863
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KALYAN K.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013394
Application 10/326,863

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, and 16. Claims 3 and 9 have been
indicated as allowable. Claims 13 and 15 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a data processing system and method
for a client machine. According to Appellants, current working practices
mean that an employee no longer has a permanent desk or fixed place of
work, which means that the computer that they may typically use to perform
their role within an organization may not be exclusively assigned to them.
The employee’s system context required for power management is saved to
a network drive rather than to a local drive. By storing the system context
remotely, the employee can roam freely throughout the organization and
restore their system context at any machine at which they log-on. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A data processing method for a system comprising a
processor, an input device, volatile memory and a
communication device to allow access to a remotely accessible
non-volatile storage medium; the system being operable in a
plurality of states each having an associated level of power
consumption; the method comprising:
outputting user identification data and corresponding data
representing a system context, for storage on the remotely
Appeal 2009-013394
Application 10/326,863

3
accessible non-volatile storage medium, to allow a transition to
a first state of the plurality of states from a second state;
placing the system in the second state;
receiving the user identification data from the input
device;
retrieving, from the remotely accessible storage medium,
the corresponding data representing the system context
corresponding to the received user identification data; and
restoring the system context using the retrieved data.

Prior Art
Teitelbaum US 5,848,231 Dec. 8, 1998
Craig US 6,260,111 B1 Jul. 10, 2001

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Craig.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Craig and Teitelbaum.

Claim Groupings
We will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1 as representative of
the group comprising claims 1, 2-11, 12, 14, and 16 since Appellants do not
separately argue these claims with particularity (App. Br. 4-6). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-013394
Application 10/326,863

4
ISSUE
Does Craig teach “outputting user identification data and
corresponding data representing a system context, for storage on the
remotely accessible non-volatile storage medium,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Craig teaches storing user preferences
defining a system context on a smart card, not a server. App. Br. 4-5. The
Examiner finds that the user preferences data stored on the smart card can
also be stored on a remote network server. Ans. 11. Appellants respond that
Craig does not function without the smart card. Reply Br. 4.
We find that Craig teaches power management user preferences that
can be specified on a smart card (col. 7, ll. 40-44), stored on a network
server, and retrieved using user identification stored on the smart card (col.
8, ll. 46-54). We conclude that Craig teaches “outputting user identification
data and corresponding data representing a system context, for storage on
the remotely accessible non-volatile storage medium” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants contend that Craig does not teach a computer that is
operable at different power levels. App. Br. 5. We find that Craig teaches a
power management unit 218 that operates the computer at different power
levels. See Fig. 3; col. 6, l. 64 to col. 7, l. 29. See also Title; Abstract.
Further, claim 1 does not recite “a computer that is operable at different
power levels.” Claim 1 merely requires a “system being operable in a
plurality of states each having an associated level of power consumption.”
The scope of claim 1 encompasses each state having the same level of power
Appeal 2009-013394
Application 10/326,863

5
consumption. Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and of
claims 2-11, 12, 14, and 16 which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Craig teaches “outputting user identification data and corresponding
data representing a system context, for storage on the remotely accessible
non-volatile storage medium” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2-11, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj