Ex Parte Andrews et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2016

12777634 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121777,634 05/11/2010 Carlton Andrews
33438 7590 03/15/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-17991 4768
EXAMINER
TECKLU, ISAAC TUKU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLTON ANDREWS and YUAN-CHANG LO
Appeal2014-003347
Application 12/777,634
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Dell Products, L.P. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003347
Application 12/777,634
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for network
device discovery and support. See Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reads as follows:
1. An information handling system comprising:
plural processing components operable to process information;
a network module interfaced with the processing components
and operable to interface with a network to communicate the
information with the network;
a plug and play module stored in memory associated with the
network module, the plug and play module operable to advertise
a profile to the network and to detect profiles advertised to the
network by other network devices, the plug and play module
further operable to provide an install package to devices of the
network that respond to the advertised profile and to retrieve an
install package from network devices that advertise profiles at
the network, the install package having instructions to
automatically configure a device that retrieves the install package
to interact through the net\~1ork \~\rith the device that provides the
install package; and
a proxy module stored in memory associated with the network
module, the proxy module operable to determine that a non-
compliant device interfaced with the network lacks a plug and
play module, to advertise a profile to the network on behalf of
the non-compliant device and to respond to queries of the
advertised profile on behalf of the non-compliant device.
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nishio (US 2002/0156947 Al;
2 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 18-20.
Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-003347
Application 12/777,634
published Oct. 24, 2002).
Claims 4---6, 12, 13, and 17-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nishio
and Schaefer et al. (US 2006/0259949 Al; published Nov. 16, 2006).
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nishio and Vardi et al. (US
2008/0288618 Al; published Nov. 20, 2008).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-11, 14, and 15-35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants contend that the cited portions of Nishio do not describe a
proxy module operable "to advertise a profile to the network on behalf of the
non-compliant device and to respond to queries of the advertised profile on
behalf of the non-compliant device," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3-5;
Reply Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants argue that "Nishio uses a proxy
server to translate identification information in response to a request for an
installation, not to advertise an asset in the absence of a request for
information about the asset from a client." Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the term "advertising" is not
explicitly defined in the Specification. Ans. 4. The Examiner may refer to
dictionary definitions when considering the plain meaning of claim terms, so
3
Appeal2014-003347
Application 12/777,634
long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in
or ascertained by a reading of the specification. Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the
Examiner refers to a definition for the term "advertising" found in the
Merriam-Webster dictionary. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that the plain meaning of the term "advertising" as shown by the referenced
dictionary definition is "to make an announcement." Ans. 4. We find this
plain meaning for the term "advertising" does not contradict any definition
found in or ascertained by a reading of the Specification. We also find this
interpretation reasonable in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by ordinary artisans and we are mindful not to import into the
claim limitations that are not a part of the claim as Appellants urge. See
Reply Br. 2.
Appellants present no alternative construction, persuasive argument,
or evidence that the Examiner's interpretation is overbroad, unreasonable, or
inconsistent with the Specification. See Reply Br. 1. Accordingly, in light
of the Specification, the plain meaning of the term "advertising" as shown
by the referenced dictionary definition and the recited claim language, we
find the Examiner has not erred in interpreting the term "to advertise" or
"advertising" as announcing the availability of something, such as
information or a profile. Ans. 4. We also agree with the Examiner that,
based on this interpretation, Nishio' s transmission of identification
information about a non-compliant peripheral that can be used by an existing
PnP installer teaches or suggests "to advertise a profile to the network on
behalf of the non-compliant device," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4--5 (citing
Nishio iTiT 4, 12, 111, 114).
4
Appeal2014-003347
Application 12/777,634
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Nishio discloses the disputed limitation recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 10,
which Appellants argue is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 5. We
also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9,
11, 14, and 15, not argued separately.
Claims 4-6, 8, 12, 13, and 16--20-35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In arguing that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 18 as obvious over
Nishio and Schaefer, Appellants rely on the argument made for claim 1-
namely, that Nishio does not disclose advertising by the proxy of the non-
compliant device. App. Br. 5---6.
For the reasons stated above regarding claim 1, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Nishio and
Schaefer teaches or suggests the disputed limitation recited in claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claim 18. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent
claims 4---6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20, not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5