Ex Parte Owhadi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 201613120831 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/120,831 03/24/2011 22879 7590 07113/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric Owhadi UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82661845 3284 EXAMINER FAYED,RASHAK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2479 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC OWHADI, THEODORE F. EMERSON, and JEFFERYL. GALLOWAY Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17. Claims 6and16 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claimed invention relates to remote management for a computer system with a portable management device. Abstract. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a limited partnership established under the laws of the State of Texas. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method of providing remote management capability to a computer system, the method comprising: connecting a portable management device to a computer system through a first network connection and connecting the portable management device to a network through a second network connection; receiving remote management data over the network via the portable management device; and executing instructions in response to the remote management data to enable a support person remote from the computer system to control the computer system. App. Br. 15. (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-5 and 7-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sivertsen (US 6,894,906 B2; issued May, 17, 2005). Final Act. 2-6. Claims 9-15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sivertsen in view of Elteto (US 7,222,240 B2; issued May 22, 2007). Final Act. 6-14. ANALYSIS The 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) Rejection Appellants argue claim 1 is not anticipated because: Sivertsen fails to disclose "connecting a portable management device to a computer system through a first network connection and connecting the portable management device to a network through a second network connection," as recited in claim 1. 2 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 Indeed, the Examiner has acknowledged that "Sivertsen does not explicitly disclose a first network connector that is adapted to allow a first network connection between the portable management device and the computer system." Final Office Action, p. 13. App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, Sivertsen's interaction device "does not couple to the local computer through a network connection" and instead "communication between the remote management unit and the local computer occurs through various Input/Output (I/O) connections such as USB ports, mouse or keyboard ports, and video ports." App. Br. 7-8 (citing col. 4, 11. 32--40; Fig. 2A). Appellants also argue Siversten does not teach a network connection implemented through the interaction device 110. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue the Examiner relies on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim term "network connection" that is inconsistent with the Specification. Reply Br. 3-5. In particular, the Specification describes network connections 112 and 146, which are both connected to an Ethernet hub 136 in the dongle 104. App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 18, 20). Appellants argue the Specification describes examples of types of networks "namely, the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wireless local area network (WLAN), a wireless wide area network (WW AN) or the like" and also describes other connections, such as video and USB, which are not described as network connections. Id. The Examiner finds Sivertsen discloses the disputed limitation wherein a local computer 102 is managed by a remote computer 120 and an interaction device 110 is disposed between a network 118 and the local computer 102. Final Act. 2 (citing Abstract; col. 2, 11. 41---63; col. 4, 11. 18- 40; col. 13, 1. 65 to col.14, 1. 6; Fig. 1). The Examiner finds the "[t]he claim 3 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 language does not specify any networking protocol to be used in connecting the portable management device to the computer system" and identifies dictionary definitions for "network" and "USB port:" Ans. 2-3. According to Techopedia.com, a Network is "is a group of two or more devices that can communicate. In practice, a network is comprised of a number of different computer systems connected by physical and/or wireless connections. The scale can range from a single PC sharing out basic peripherals to massive data centers located around the World, to the Internet itself'. According to Techopedia.com, a USB port is "a common interface that enables communication between devices and a host controller such as a personal computer (PC). It connects peripheral devices such as digital cameras, mice, keyboards, printers, scanners, media devices, external hard drives and flash drives". According to techopedia.com, a dongle is "a piece of hardware used for software protection that is connected to a computer's I/O port to ensure that software is executed securely." Ans. 2-3. The Examiner applies these definitions to Sivertsen' s local computer (which includes USB port 109) and interaction device 110 (which includes USB connector 736 to establish USB connectivity between the interaction device 110 and local computer 102). Ans. 3--4 (col. 4, 11. 31-39; col. 12, 1. 66 to col. 13, 1. 9). In particular, the Examiner finds: Connecting the local computer to the interactive device (dongle) via the USB port provide[ s] a[] network connection between the local computer and the interactive device as recited in claim 1, since data can be exchanged between them and since the local computer can be remotely managed by data exchanged between the remote computer (120) and the local computer (102) via the interactive device (110). Ans. 4 (emphasis added). 4 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 We do not agree the Examiner's interpretation of "network connection" is unreasonable and overbroad, nor that it is inconsistent with the Specification. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Sivertsen describes a USB port as a network connection between the interactive device and the local computer wherein the remote computer manages the local computer through data exchanged between the local computer and the interactive device. Ans. 4. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, our reviewing court cautions that great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We are not persuaded by Appellants' assertion that the Examiner has acknowledged that "Sivertsen does not explicitly disclose a first network connector that is adapted to allow a first network connection between the portable management device and the computer system." App. Br. 8 (citing Final Office Action, p. 13). The Examiner's statement is made regarding claim 17, rather than claim 1, and claim 17 is rejected for obviousness over the combination of Sivertsen and Elteto, discussed infra. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, as the Examiner presents sufficient evidence required for a finding of anticipation. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 5 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8, as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection Appellants argue "Sivertsen discloses an interaction device that includes a network connection for connecting the interaction device to a network, but does not include a network connection for connecting the interaction device to the local computer." App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, Sivertsen fails to disclose all of the elements of independent claims 9 and 17, and Elteto fails to remedy the deficiencies of Sivertsen. Id. In particular, Appellants argue Elteto' s USB hub is not the same as a network hub and "nothing in Elteto suggests that the USB hub of the personal key could be used to couple a device to a network. Indeed, the USB hub of Elteto does not couple to a network at all." App. Br. 12. (citing col 7, 11. 35---60; Figs. 3, 4). According to Appellants, Elteto's USB hub is "internal to the personal key and merely couples two different memory portions of the personal key to the personal key's USB port." Id. The Examiner finds a definition of hub: According to techopedia.com, a hub is "a hardware device that relays communication data. A hub sends data packets (frames) to all devices on a network, regardless of any MAC addresses contained in the data packet. Network Hubs: These are common connection points for network devices, which connect segments of a LAN (local area network) and may contain multiple ports - an interface for connecting network devices such as printers, storage devices, workstations, servers, etc." Ans. 5. 6 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 Applying this definition, the Examiner finds Elteto's personal key 300 acts like a USB hub and is a network hub: since it connects segments of the network, which are the personal key and the local computer (through USB ports 206 & 130). The Local computer is connected to the network 132, which in tum[ ] makes the personal key connected to the internet as well. There is nothing in the claim language that specifies that the portable device should be directly connected to the network. Ans. 6 (citing Figs. 2, 3; col. 3, 1. 62 to col. 4, 1. 29). In addition, the Examiner finds Elteto further teaches that: [t]he computer 102 may be communicatively coupled to a remote computer or server 134 via communication medium 132 such as a dial-up network, a wide area network (WAN), local area network (LAN), virtual private network (VPN) or the Internet. Final Act. 15-16 (citing col. 6, 11. 1-10). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings that Elteto's key is a network hub. The claim term "network hub" is not explicitly defined in the Specification, and Appellants present no persuasive evidence why the Examiner's findings and interpretation are overly broad or unreasonable. In re Crish, 393 F.3d at 1256. Regarding the limitations "a first network connector that is adapted to allow a network connection between the network hub and a computer system" (claim 9) and "a first network connector that is adapted to allow a first network connection between the portable management device and the computer system" (claim 17), we agree with the Examiner's findings that the personal key 300 is connected to the local computer 102, which is connected to the network 132, and therefore the personal key is connected to the 7 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 internet. Ans. 6 (citing Figs. 2, 3; col. 3, 1. 62 to col. 4, 1. 29). See also Final Act. 15-16 ("The USB hub in Elteto is used to couple the Personal key 200 (Portable device) to the network through the host computer 102."). Further, we agree claims 9 and 17 do not require the portable device be directly connected to the network. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection must be based on "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle," and the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient evidence that the combination of the cited references was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 8 Appeal2014-008246 Application 13/120,831 In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 and independent claim 1 7, which is argued together with claim 9. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10-15 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation