12349296 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Perusse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2016

12349296 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/349,296 0110612009 31625 7590 03/30/2016 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PA TENT DEPARTMENT 98 SAN JACINTO BL VD., SUITE 1500 AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Charles T. Perusse JR. 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. 016295.3965 4736 EXAMINER HASSAN, AURANGZEB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2016 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): DLAustinRecordsManagement@BakerBotts.com tracy.perez@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES T. PERUSSE JR., MANOI SHARAD GUJARATHI, and YOUSEF YACOUB Appeal2014-003016 Application 12/349,296 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-003016 Application 12/349,296 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to reducing or improving problems and disadvantages associated with conventional approaches to provisioning an information handling system. Appellants' Specification describes a method of storing a definition data structure in storage media of an access controller in the information handling system. The definition data structure includes one or more parameters that may be used by the access controller to create a storage partition on the storage media based on the parameters. See Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for provisioning storage media of an access controller in an information handling system, comprising: receiving a definition data structure via an out-of-band management channel coupling a network to an access controller integral to the information handling system, the out-of-band management channel physically isolated from an in-band communication channel coupling the information handling system to the network via a network interface integral to the information handling system and independent of the access controller, wherein the out-of-band management channel is configured to receive communications regardless of the power state of the information handling system; storing the definition data structure in storage media associated with the access controller, the definition data structure including one or more parameters; and the access controller creating a storage partition on the storage media based at least on the one or more parameters. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Helfman (US 2008/0107262 Al, May 2 Appeal2014-003016 Application 12/349,296 8, 2008), Little (US 2010/0099491 Al, Apr. 22, 2010), and Stoddard (US 6,453,383 Bl, Sept.17, 2002). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "receiving a definition data structure via an out-of- band management channel ... the out-of-band management channel physically isolated from an in-band communication channel coupling the information handling system to the network .... " App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds "there is no explicitly [sic] disclosure of a physical structure of an in-band and out-of-band communication channel" in the Specification and an "ambiguity in the lack of defining ... a[ n] in-band and out-of-band channel." Ans. 2-3. In this context, the Examiner finds "[t]he handling system itself is figure 1 of Helfman which shows communication channels between a main and remote computer." Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds "Helfman clearly states that the interface between a main and remote computer is via a channel 108 which can be embodied over a WAN or LAN," and that one of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, know that such channels are physical connections. Ans. 3. Appellants argue "[ w ]hether channel 108 is a physical connection is not relevant, however, to whether Helfman discloses 'out-of-band management channel physically isolated from the in-band communication channel. "'2 Reply. Br. 2-3. Appellants also argue "[t]he disclosure of two 2 Appellants present additional arguments in their Appeal Brief. However, because the identified argument is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the merits of these additional arguments. 3 Appeal2014-003016 Application 12/349,296 different network interfaces does not necessitate the presence of physically isolated communication channels." App. Br. 8. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds Figure 1 of Helfman teaches an information handling system and that channel 108 between the main and remote computer is a physical connection. Ans. 3. We agree with Appellants, however, that whether channel 108 is a physical connection is not sufficient to teach that such a channel is physically isolated from another channel. See Reply Br. 2-3. Furthermore, the Examiner does not show or explain in the Final Action or in the Answer how the channels depicted in Figure 1 are physically isolated. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10 and 18, which were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 2-3. Finally, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-3, 6-9, 11, 14--17, and 20-25, which depend from one of claims 1, 10, or 18. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20-25 is reversed. REVERSED 4