Ex Parte Gross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12431169 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/431, 169 04/28/2009 22879 7590 05/02/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Curtis T. Gross 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. 82249346 4641 EXAMINER NGUYEN, NGOC THACH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2494 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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 Exparte CURTIS T. GROSS and JAMES M. FELDMAN1 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to the transfer of credential information when a network entity is identified by a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server. Abstract. According to the Specification, this allows a server computer, for example, to automatically and dynamically configure a new computer (such as by adding a new root password or creating accounts). Spec i-f 17. Further, according to the Specification, "opportunities for user error are reduced, and costs associated with deploying new hardware into a network computing environment are also reduced." Spec. i-f 66. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A computer system comprising: a bus; a central processing unit for executing program instructions, the central processing unit coupled to the bus; a network interface controller for transmitting data to and from a network fabric, the network interface controller coupled to the bus; memory for storing program instructions and data, the memory coupled to the bus; persistent storage for storing program instructions and data, the persistent storage coupled to the bus and including data and instructions stored thereon to implement: an operating system; an operating system configuration; a credential transfer client agent for sending a credential transfer message from the computer system to a network entity identified by a dynamic host configuration protocol server and 2 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 receiving credential information from a credential transfer server; and a credential transfer client configuration agent, for updating the operating system configuration with the credential information received from the credential transfer server. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reeves et al. (US 2007/0239861 Al; Oct. 11, 2007) ("Reeves"); Khosravi (US 7,805,512 B2; Sept. 28, 2010); Eldar et al. (US 2007/0297396 Al; Dec. 27, 2007) ("Eldar"); and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (Appeal Brief; Oct. 15, 2012) ("AAPA"). Final Act. 5-11. 2. Claims 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reeves, Khosravi, Eldar, AAPA, and Angelot et al. (US 2009/0201830 Al; Aug. 13, 2009) ("Angelot"). Final Act. 11-14. 3. Claims 6, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reeves, Khosravi, Eldar, AAP A, Angelot, and Jeffrey Mogul, Broadcasting Internet Datagrams in the Presence of Subnets, Network Working Group-Request for Comments (October 1984) ("Mogul"). Final Act. 14--16. 4. Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reeves, Khosravi, Eldar, AAP A, and Takeda (US 2006/0124754 Al; June 15, 2006). Final Act. 16-17. 3 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests "a credential transfer client agent for sending a credential transfer message from the computer system to a network entity identified by a dynamic host configuration protocol server and receiving credential information from a credential transfer server," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Eldar teaches a DHCP server that identifies a provisioning server (i.e., the claimed network entity) to a computer system. App. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue Eldar's DHCP server does not identify a provisioning server but, rather, performs the conventional functions of a DHCP server and merely provides a domain name of the provisioning server to the computer system. App. Br. 5---6. Appellants assert it is the computer system (not the DHCP server) of Eldar that identifies the provisioning server. Id. (citing Eldar i-fi-1 30-31 ). Specifically, Appellants argue the computer system of Eldar concatenates the domain name provided by the DHCP server with a predefined host name to determine the fully qualified domain name of the provisioning server. App. Br. 5. In response, the Examiner explains Eldar teaches, inter alia, a zero touch provisioning system wherein a computer system to be provisioned 2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed January 3, 2014 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed May 13, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on March 14, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed on July 3, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken ("Final Act."). 4 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 may first connect to a DHCP server via an out of band (OOB) microcontroller. Ans. 2-3 (citing Eldar i-fi-124--25). "By connecting to DHCP server 202, computer system 100 may not only obtain an IP address, but may also sniff other information, such as, for example, but not limited to, domain name information." Eldar i124. The Examiner finds "[b ]ecause Eldar' s DHCP server provides the domain name to the computer system, which is used to locate the provisioning server, the DHCP server has in effect identified the domain where the provisioning server is located." Ans. 3. In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend the Examiner relied on Eldar "to anticipate specific elements," but in explaining Eldar' s DHCP in effect identifies the provisioning server, "the Examiner [has] conceded that Eldar does not disclose" the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 2. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because obviousness is established when the prior art, itself, would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531F.2d1048, 1051(CCPA1976). In that regard, an obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421. Although we note, as stated by Appellants, Eldar teaches the fully qualified domain name of the provisioning server is obtained by concatenating the domain name received from the DHCP server with a predefined host name, we further note Eldar does not require the predefined 5 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 host name reside solely within the computer system. See Eldar iii! 30-31. As taught by Eldar, by connecting to the DHCP server, the computer system "may also sniff other information, such as, for example, but not limited to, domain name information." Eldar if 24 (emphasis added). Further, Eldar teaches: "Using a predefined host name and the domain name information retrieved from the DHCP server 202 to obtain the FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) for provisioning server 204, computer system 100, via OOB microcontroller 110, may connect to provisioning server 204 to begin the provisioning of computer system 100." Eldar if 24. Thus, Eldar teaches, or at least reasonably suggests, that both a predefined host name and the domain name may be retrieved from the DHCP server. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Eldar teaches or suggests "a network entity [(i.e., a provisioning server)] identified by a dynamic host configuration protocol server," as recited in claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and of independent claims 8 and 15, which contain similar limitations and which were not argued separately. App. Br. 6. Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which were not argued separately. Id. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. 6 Appeal2014-006527 Application 12/431,169 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 7