Ex Parte Hughes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

11880957 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________ 

Ex parte NATHAN JARED HUGHES
and STEPHEN PATRICK HACK
________________

Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,9571
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 15 and 18–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–14 are allowed. Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being
dependent from a rejected claim. However, claims 16 and 17 would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of
the claims from which they depend.
Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,957

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to managing the ejection of devices from
partitions in multi-processor computer systems. Spec. ¶ 11. Claim 15 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
15. A method to eject a device in a multiprocessor
computer system comprising at least a first cell having a first
processor and a first operating system and a second cell having
a second processor and a second operating system, the method
comprising:
receiving a request to remove a device from the first cell;
in response to the request to remove the device, invoking
an ejection process for the device;
determining whether the device has a resource allocated
to it by firmware in the computer system; and
rejecting the request to remove the device if the device
has a resource allocated to it by firmware in the computer
system.

REFERENCES
Zalewski US 6,260,068 B1 July 10, 2001
Mori US 2005/0289359 A1 December 29, 2005

Microsoft Computer Dictionary 451 (5th ed. 2002)

REJECTION
Claims 15 and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mori. Ans. 4–6.

Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,957

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 1 recites “rejecting the request to remove the device if the
device has a resource allocated to it by firmware in the computer system.”
The Examiner finds Mori teaches a user inputting their credentials, which
the Examiner maps to the claimed “resource.” Ans. 5 and 7. In addition, the
Examiner finds Mori teaches software and components execute a theft
prevention program and prompt the user to provide their credentials. Id. at
7. Further, the Examiner finds Mori teaches rejecting a request to remove a
device as a result of improperly entered credentials. Id. at 7–8.
Appellants contend Mori’s disclosure of credentials, is inconsistent
with the Specification and the standard definition of resources. App. Br. 11–
12; Reply Br. 5–6. Moreover, Appellants contend Mori’s software is not
firmware (App. Br. 12) and Mori fails to disclose the nexus of the firmware
allocating resources to the device (Reply Br. 6–7). Appellants contend Mori
merely teaches a request to remove a device is not inherently rejected rather
than rejecting the request to remove a device if the device already has
resources allocated to it by the firmware. App. Br. 12. We disagree with
Appellants.
The cited portions of Mori relied upon by the Examiner teach an
ejecting request is made. If the system determines the device is subject to
theft prevention, a password is required before ejecting the device. See Mori
¶¶ 58–62; Ans. 5. Mori’s disclosure of a password input teaches the claimed
limitation “resource,” because entering the correct password is something
one would use to help eject a device. Id. at 7. Specifically, Mori’s
disclosure of inputting credentials in the form of a password to achieve
Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,957

4
ejection of the device (id) is consistent with the Appellants’ definition,
which is “something that you can use to help you achieve something” (App.
Br. 11; Reply Br. 5).
As for Appellants’ second contention, the cited portions of Mori relied
upon by the Examiner teach software that allocates resources (e.g.,
credentials request) to the device if the user wants to eject the device. See
Mori ¶¶ 42–50 and 61–62; Ans. 7. Moreover, we note Mori teaches the
functions of the invention may be performed by firmware (see Mori ¶ 102),
which teaches the claimed limitation of firmware allocating resources to the
device.
Regarding Appellants’ last contention, the cited portions of Mori
relied upon by the Examiner teach an ejecting request is made and the
system determines if the device is subject to theft prevention. See Mori ¶¶
58–62; Ans. 5. If so, the system requires valid credentials before ejecting
the device. Id. As described supra, Mori’s credentials request teaches the
claimed limitation of resource. That is, Mori teaches if the user fails to enter
valid credentials (password) within a threshold time, presses cancel, or
incorrectly enters credentials, then the request to reject the device is denied
because the device still has resources (e.g., credentials request) allocated to
it. Id.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15.
Because Appellants have not provided separate arguments against the
rejections of claims 18 and 19, these claims fall with claim 15 for same
reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,957

5
Rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner cites Zalewski to support the finding of Official Notice.
Ans. 8–9. The Examiner finds Zalewski teaches reallocating a removed
device from one partition to another partition, each partition having its own
operating system and processor. Id. In addition, the Examiner finds it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to combine Mori and Zalewski to extend the capability
of the destination system by moving an ejected device from one partition to
another partition. Id. at 9.
Appellants contend the combination Mori and Zalewski changes the
principle operation of the prior art invention being modified because Mori
pertains to physically removing devices from a system; whereas Zalewski
pertains to the device remaining in the system and being reallocated from
one partition to another partition. Reply Br. 9. We disagree with
Appellants.
As explained supra, the Examiner identified a teaching to combine or
modify components of Mori and Zalewski to obtain Appellants’ claimed
invention. Thus, the Examiner provided articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support the motivation to combine the teachings of Mori
and Zalewski (see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15 and 18–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-006830
Application 11/880,957

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh