12533073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

Ex Parte Siegman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 2016

12533073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/533,073 07/31/2009 Craig S. Siegman 2540-1039 6889 42624 7590 06/21/2016 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP 8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER BORROMEO, JUANITO C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CRAIG S. SIEGMAN, BRIAN S. STEWART, and DAVID J. COWEN1 ____________ Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1–14. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avocent Corporation (owned by Emerson Corp). See Appeal Brief 1. 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed July 31, 2009 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 7, 2013; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 3, 2014; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Aug. 22, 2014; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Oct. 22, 2014. Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ application relates to a system and method for handling certain keystrokes or keystroke combinations on a remote station so that a user may select whether those keystrokes are sent to a target device, or whether they affect a remote station controlling the target device. Abstract. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A data processing system for routing keystrokes, comprising: an input configured to receive a first indication of one or more keystrokes of a keyboard to be routed to a client device, and configured to receive a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device; a keyboard comprising keys and receiving one or more keystrokes by a user on one or more of the keys; a processor configured to determine whether the received one or more user keystrokes are to be routed to one of: (1) a client device and (2) a target device, based on the received first and second indications; and the client device configured to receive the one or more user keystrokes based on the first indication. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Birger US 2009/0265488 Al Oct. 22, 2009 Atkin et al. (hereinafter “Atkin”) US 8,181,109 B2 May 15, 2012 Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Birger. See Final Act. 2–3, 5, and 6. Claims 4–6 and 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birger in view of Atkin. See Final Act. 4–5. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and issues raised by the Examiner and Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants or the Examiner and which are therefore not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because: the cited references do not disclose “an input configured to receive a first indication of one or more keystrokes of a keyboard to be routed to a client device, and configured to receive a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device,” as recited, for example, in claim 1. An exemplary embodiment of a system disclosed in the present application provides way to handle certain keystrokes or keystroke combinations so that a user may select whether the keystrokes are sent to a remote station or a target device. (See, for example, paragraph 13). Birger does not do this. There is no “second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device.” The Examiner cites that KVM/ethernet modules are assigned with a plurality of addresses “implies” a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device. (Office Action dated June 7, 2013, p. 2 and November 5, 2012, p. 3). However, this does not anticipate the limitation. Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 4 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because the term “‘implies’ is wholly insufficient for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. Section 102” (id. at 6) where the Examiner’s finds that Keyboard-Video-Mouse (KVM)/ethernet modules are assigned with a plurality of addresses implies a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device. Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing Final Act. 2). 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because: [T]he citation in both the Office Action (p. 3) and Birger (paragraph 20) of KVM modules being assigned a plurality of addresses does not disclose keystrokes of a keyboard, much less keystrokes of a keyboard routed to a target device. The citation at paragraph 20 merely says that a KVM module is assigned a plurality of addresses. This says nothing about inputting keystrokes. These are internet addresses (paragraph 63), not keystrokes, and the Birger says nothing about them being keystrokes. A plurality of internet addresses does not disclose keystrokes, nor keystrokes routed to a specific device. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend the Examiner erred because in Birger “[o]nly routing of IP addresses are discussed” and so Birger does not disclose “keystrokes or routing of keystrokes.” Appeal Br. 8–9. 4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because: Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner’s theory is unclear. The Examiner has pointed to many components on Figure 1, but the supposed operation between those components that the Examiner deems to read on the claim limitation is unknown. Applicants respectfully requested (Response to Office Action dated May 3, 2013, p. 7) that the Examiner Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 5 clarify this position for clarity, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. l.104(c)(2) and M.P.E.P. 707.07(i), but received no clarification. For example, although the Office Action cites keyboard 160 for a keyboard and server 102 for a target device, nowhere in the specification does it disclose an indication of keystrokes routed from keyboard 160 to server 102, nor is it inherent. Furthermore, the Office Action cites no place in the specification where it does. Appeal Br. 7. 5. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because Birger does not disclose “‘a memory configured to store the received first and second indications’ of keystrokes. The Office Action cites KVM/IP modules 124 and 126 but does not explain how or where they store first and second indications of keystrokes, at least because this is not in the specification of Birger.” Appeal Br. 7. 6. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because: Applicants respectfully traverse the rejections to the claims at least because Birger does not disclose “a processor configured to determine whether the received one or more user keystrokes are to be routed to one of: (1) a client device and (2) a target device, based on the received first and second indications,” as recited, for example, in claim 1. With respect to this limitation, the Office Action merely cites processor 130 and states that the first and second indications of keystrokes are “received KVM/IP addresses 124 and 126.” As noted previously, IP addresses are not keystrokes. Furthermore, “KVM/IP 124” and “126” are not addresses themselves, they are KVM “modules.” (Paragraph 60). Processor 130 and KVM/IP modules of Birger do not disclose determining whether the keystrokes from a keyboard are routed to a client device or a target device based on different received indications. Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 6 7. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 because: The Examiner’s Answer cites the indications of keystrokes of a keyboard “IP addresses” (p. 2, top of p. 3) but switches to citing them as IP packets (p. 3-4) in different limitations of the claim. IP addresses and IP packets are two different things. However, the first and second indications are the same term throughout the claims. Reply Br. 2. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–14 because Birger fails to disclose the argued limitations? DISCUSSION After review of Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. See generally, Final Act. 2–6; Ans. 2–5. We add the following for emphasis and completeness. Rejection of Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. As to above contention 1; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. The Examiner correctly points out that first and second indications are not explicitly defined in Applicants’ Specification and therefore they can be broadly Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 7 construed to mean any type of indication such as IP addresses. Ans. 2. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that a reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the claimed “second indication” reads on the IP addresses provided to Birger’s Keyboard-Video- Mouse (“KVM”)/Ethernet modules (Answer 2) and, accordingly, we agree that Birger discloses the disputed limitation. Appellants contend “the claims define the indications by further requiring them to be ‘indications of keystrokes of a keyboard to be routed to a client device’ [and] IP addresses are not indications of keystrokes of a keyboard.” Reply Br. 1–2 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. The Examiner correctly finds that as claimed, the indication need not be comprised of keystrokes, but merely indicates where keystrokes are to be routed (i.e. to the client device or target device). Ans. 2. Thus, because Birger’s IP addresses indicate where packets including keystroke data (of KVM data) are to be routed, Birger discloses the disputed features. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Birger discloses allowing a user to select whether keystrokes are sent to a target device by using KVM switch 114 to send keystroke information to the plurality of KVM/Ethernet modules over the local network according to the respective IP address of the remote station or target device. Ans. 2 (citing Birger ¶ 27). That is, as stated by the Examiner, in order for a single keyboard to control a plurality of servers over the internet, “it requires plurality of keystroke indications, i.e. IP addresses associated with the keystroke commands, in order to distinguish the controls over the plurality of servers.” Ans. 3. We, thus, agree with the Examiner’s finding that Birger discloses “an input . . . Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 8 configured to receive a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard to be routed to a target device,” as recited in claim 1. As to above contention 2; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “implicit” is “unquestioning or unreserved; absolute.” Implicit Definition. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/implicit (accessed: June 13, 2016). We find that based on the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “implicit,” the Examiner’s statement that Birger implies “a second indication” is synonymous with Birger discloses “a second indication,” as claimed. We disagree therefore with Appellants’ conclusion in contention 2. As to above contention 3; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. Appellants essentially argue that, in Birger, “[a] plurality of internet addresses does not disclose keystrokes, nor keystrokes routed to a specific device.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellants argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as discussed above in the response to contention one. That is, the Examiner correctly finds that Birger’s internet addresses disclose “a second indication of one or more keystrokes of the keyboard” (emphasis added), rather than the keystrokes themselves. Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds that Birger discloses routing keystrokes of a keyboard in the form of KVM information to varying devices such as servers 102–106 in accordance with the received internet addresses. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2–3. We concur with the findings and conclusion reached by the Examiner. As to above contention 4; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. Appellants essentially argue that, in Birger, “the Examiner’s theory is unclear . . . . [because] nowhere in the specification does it disclose an Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 9 indication of keystrokes routed from keyboard 160 to server 102, nor is it inherent.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner provides additional clarification of the rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 2–3. There, the Examiner finds and we agree that Birger discloses that “Keyboard-Video-Mouse (KVM) switch [114] may be implemented to allow one or more users, e.g., of one or more local console and/or one or more remote consoles, to control a plurality of servers using a keyboard” and “in order for a single keyboard to control a plurality of servers over the internet, it requires plurality of keystroke indications.” Ans. 2, 3. Specifically, in Birger, KVM information including keystrokes of keyboard 160 is routed by KVM switch 114 to varying devices such as servers 102–106. Id. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. As to above contention 5; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. As noted above, the Examiner finds and we agree that Birger discloses allowing a user to select whether keystrokes are sent to a target device by using KVM switch 114 to send keyboard information in the form of packets to the plurality of KVM/Ethernet modules over the local network according to the IP address of the target device. Ans. 2 (citing Birger ¶ 27). The Examiner also finds that KVM switch 114 must necessarily include a memory for storing I/P packets with IP addresses that are being routed and “as such, Birger discloses a memory configured to store the received first and second indications of keystrokes.” Ans. 3. We understand the Examiner to conclude that the memory is inherent to KVM switch 114. Because inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we concur with the Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 10 Examiner’s finding that Birger discloses “a memory,” as claimed. See Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As to above contention 6; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion for the reasons discussed above in response to contentions 1 and 2 and because the Examiner correctly finds that Birger’s KVM switch 114 includes processor 130 and that Birger therefore discloses “a processor,” as claimed. Ans. 4 (citing Birger ¶ 73). As to above contention 7; we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner consistently finds that Birger discloses routing packets using different IP addresses that act as indicators. See, e.g., Ans. 2–3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 7, and 14, which Appellants argue are patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. App. Br. 5. Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Rejection of Claims 4–6 and 10–13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 4–6 and 10–13. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of these dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Appeal 2015-001260 Application 12/533,073 11 DECISION We AFFIRM3 the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Birger. We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6 and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birger in view of Atkin. 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 3 If Appellants should choose to reopen prosecution, the Examiner is advised to ascertain whether independent claim 1 meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. As an example, in independent claim 1, “a client device” and “a target device” are each introduced twice. The Examiner should ascertain whether there is sufficient particularly to distinguish the two pairs of separately introduced devices.