Ex Parte Walrath

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2016

13259412 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/259,412 09/23/2011
22879 7590 07112/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig A Walrath
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.
82853392 7303
EXAMINER
MOOR THY, ARA VIND K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2016 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 CRAIG A W ALRATH1
Appeal2014-005303
Application 13/259,412
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-18. Claims 4, 11, and 14 are
canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a
wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company having HPQ Holdings,
LLC, as the general or managing partner, as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005303
Application 13/259,412
Invention
Appellant discloses a recovery procedure that sends data over a
communication link for transfer to a recovery destination, wherein the data
is sent in an order according to information relating to prioritizing of types
of the data. Spec., Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced belmv \vith key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method of recovering data, comprising:
detecting tampering of an electronic device that stores
data in a storage medium of the electronic device;
starting a recovery procedure in response to detecting the
tampering;
receiving, by a processor in performing the recovery
procedure, information relating to prioritizing of types of the
data;
detecting, by the processor in performing the recovery
procedure, a communication link; and
sending, by the processor in performing the recovery
procedure, the data over the communication link for transfer to
a recovery destination, wherein the data is sent in an order
according to the information relating to prioritizing of the types
of the data; and
storing at least some of the data into a protected region in
response to detecting tampering of the electronic device,
wherein sending the data comprises sending the at least some of
the data from the protected region.
2
Appeal2014-005303
Application 13/259,412
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kenney (US 2008/0233919 Al;
Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenney and Stone-Kaplan (US 2007 /0043967 Al; Feb.
22, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kenney and Davtchev (US 200710101131 A 1; May 3,
2007). Final Act. 9-10.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Kenney discloses "sending ... data
over the communication link for transfer to a recovery destination, wherein
the data is sent in an order according to the information relating to
prioritizing of the types of the data," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kenney's storing of data in a
location dependent on an importance ranking (unimportant, important, etc.)
associated with the data discloses sending data over a communication link
for transfer to a recovery destination, wherein the data is sent in an order
according to the information relating to prioritizing of types of the data.
Final Act. 3 (citing Kenney i-f 60); Ans. 3--4 (citing Kenney i-fi-1 59---60).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "[a]ll Kenney would
have disclosed is that data of one rank is stored remotely, while data of a
different rank is stored locally." App. Br. 6. Appellant argues the "decision
of which data to store remotely and which data to store locally provides no
3
Appeal2014-005303
Application 13/259,412
teaching or hint of sending data in an order according to the information
relating to the prioritization of the types of the data." Id. at 6-7; see also
Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The cited portions of
Kenney relate to where data is stored, rather than in what order data is sent.
Kenney i-fi-159-60. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show Kenney
discloses "sending ... data over the communication link for transfer to a
recovery destination, wherein the data is sent in an order according to the
information relating to prioritizing of the types of the data," as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18, which
contain similar recitations. The Examiner's findings do not show Stone-
Kaplan or Davtchev cures the noted deficiency of Kenney. Therefore, we
also cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3
and 9.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12,
13, and 15-18.
REVERSED
4