Ex Parte Bonola et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

13060199 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/060,199 02/22/2011 22879 7590 03/22/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas J. Bonola 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. 82651092 6500 EXAMINER JOSHI, SURAJ M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2016 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 THOMAS J. BONOLA, JOHN M. HEMPHILL, and MIKE DICKSON1 Appeal2014-004216 Application 13/060, 199 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-14, and 20-33. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 15-19 have been canceled. App. Br. i. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004216 Application 13/060, 199 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to a "remote graphics console and virtual media access to virtual machines." Abstract. In particular, a virtual keyboard/video/mouse (KVM) element, located on a physical server, exports a guest console from a selected guest operating system to a computer. Spec. i-fi-f 13, 24. According to the Specification, the guest console can then accept mouse and keyboard input signals from a remote location to perform operations on the physical server. Spec. i124. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A data processing system comprising: a virtualization platform having at least one physical server configured to run a plurality of guest operating systems simultaneously in respective virtual machines; a virtual keyboard/video/mouse (KVM) element executable in the virtualization platform to: select, in response to input, one of the guest operating systems; control a baseboard management controller to export a guest console of the selected guest operating system to a computer to display the guest console as a remote management graphics console at the computer; and map a physical storage medium of the computer as a virtual storage medium to the selected guest operating system. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-14, 20, 21, 24--27 and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plouffe et al. 2 Appeal2014-004216 Application 13/060, 199 (US 2005/0120160 Al; June 2, 2005) ("Plouffe") and Lambert et al. (US 2008/0005222 Al; Jan. 3, 2008) ("Lambert"). Final Act. 4--14. 2. Claims 22, 23, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Plouffe, Lambert, and Phillips (US 2011/0061045 Al; Mar. 10, 2011 (filed Nov. 11, 2010)). Final Act. 14--16. Issue on Appeal2 Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Plouffe and Lambert teaches or suggests exporting a guest console of a selected guest operating system to a computer to display the guest console, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS3 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Plouffe teaches, inter alia, "export[ing] a guest console of the selected guest operating system to a computer to display the guest console as a remote management graphics console at the computer," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Plouffe i-fi-1 62, 67). In particular, the Examiner relies on Plouffe' s teaching of a distributed virtual machine monitor creating a single system image upon 2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments. 3 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed February 4, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on December 5, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed on May 21, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken ("Final Act."). 3 Appeal2014-004216 Application 13/060, 199 which a single instance of a virtual server is executed (Plouffe if 62) and porting an operating system to a Virtual Machine Architecture (VMA) (Plouffe if 67). Final Act. 5. Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner's findings, "[t]he 'system image' and the 'virtual machine monitor' discussed in these passages of Plouffe [(i.e., paragraphs 62 and 67)] do not constitute a guest console of the selected guest operating system exported to a computer to display the guest console as a remote management graphics console at the computer." App. Br. 8. Rather, Appellants argue, the system of image of Plouffe refers to a copy of software or machine-readable instructions upon which a single instance of a virtual server is executed. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue the virtual machine monitor is merely a program executed by one or more nodes. App. Br. 8 (citing Plouffe if 13). In response, the Examiner explains Plouffe teaches a system for managing virtual servers and Plouffe teaches a virtualization layer that maps a plurality of physical resources to one or more virtual resources. Ans. 14. Further, the Examiner reiterates Plouffe teaches commodity operating systems may be ported to a Virtual Machine Architecture presented by a distributed virtual machine monitor. Ans. 15. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants that the "system image" and "virtual machine monitor" identified by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 do not correspond to the guest console, or a display of the guest console, as claimed. Plouffe teaches the distributed virtual machine monitor is a program, rather than a monitor (i.e., display). See Plouffe if 13. Further, we agree with Appellants that the system image 4 Appeal2014-004216 Application 13/060, 199 mentioned in paragraph 62 refers to a copy of software or machine-readable instructions, and not a displayed image. Although we note other portions of Plouffe may teach exporting a guest console to another computer to display the console as a remote management console, see, e.g., Plouffe ,-r 146 ("the virtual server may generate screen output, and this output may be redirected to another computer for viewing by an administrator"), the Examiner's findings and mapping to the claimed limitations as set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer do not support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 1213.02. For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 and 20, which contain similar limitations. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 21-33. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-14, and 20-33. REVERSED 5