Ex Parte Halim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

13193997 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/193,997 07 /29/2011
22879 7590 05/13/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Irwan Halim
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.
82654946 9045
EXAMINER
BROCK, ROBERTS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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 IRWAN HALIM, NORMAN P. BROWN, and
WILLIAM R. WHIPPLE
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to emulating input/ output
components through virtualization. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 12, 16). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A device comprising:
an external connector to connect the device to another device;
a plurality of input/output components;
a selection module to select one of the input/ output
components; and
an emulation module to emulate the one input/ output
component as a virtual device,
wherein the virtual device is identified as a peripheral device to
the other device via the external connector.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chrysanthakopoulos (US 2010/0153089 Al; published June
17, 2010).
Claims 7, 11, and 14--15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chrysanthakopoulos and
Goodman (US 2004/0230710 Al; published Nov. 18, 2004).
ANALYSIS
After considering each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with the
Examiner's rejections. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from
2
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
which this appeal was taken. (Ans. 2---6; Final Act. 3-23). Our discussions
will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants contend Chrysanthakopoulos does not disclose the
limitations in independent claim 1 because "Chrysanthakopoulos suggests
the ability to virtualize a device that is NOT present in the computer." (App.
Br. 11 ). Appellants argue "Chrysanthakopoulos never actually states that
the hardware device being virtualized by the virtual device driver is present"
and "in Chrysanthakopoulos the device that is emulated to another computer
is not physically present." (App. Br. 12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Ans. 2--4). We agree with the Examiner that
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim
language. As the Examiner notes, the claim language does not specify the
physical disposition of the I/O components in relation to the device - they
are not claimed as "in," "on," "connected to," "above" or even "physically
present" in the claimed device. (Ans. 3). Regardless, however, we agree
with the Examiner that Chrysanthakopoulos discloses that the device may or
may not be present. (Ans. 3--4, citing Chrysanthakopoulos i-fi-1 5, 7, 10, 27,
28). In other words, Chrysanthakopoulos discloses both options. (Id.) For
example, Chrysanthakopoulos states "[t]he PC may then emulate any device
automatically with or without a physical device present."
(Chrysanthakopoulos i-f l 0, emphasis added). Additionally, the Abstract
describes "peripherals connected to the PC" where "[ t ]he PC can then be
3
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
enumerated as the connected device by other PCs on the bus."
( Chrysanthakopoulos Abstract).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Chrysanthakopoulos anticipates claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
therefore sustain that rejection. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 8, which
recites substantially similar limitations, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, and
9-15, which were not argued separately.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "wherein the emulation module translates
communications between the other device and the one input/ output
component." Appellants argue Chrysanthakopoulos does not disclose
"translating communications between a device [and] an I/O component"
because paragraph 30 of Chrysanthakopoulos "explicitly states that ' [ n Jo
translations are necessary."' (App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Paragraph 30 of
Chrysanthakopoulos states:
In addition to being able to emulate multiple devices at one
time and not requiring that a device be plugged in to emulate
the device, another benefit of the present invention is that it
allows "native" communication across the serial bus. In the
previous example, PC2 can communicate using "native"
language because it believes it is communicating with a 13 94
printer instead of a USB printer. No translations are necessary
because PC 1 's emulation driver 214 communicates directly
with the USB device driver 210.
4
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that because 1394 and USB are two
incompatible protocols, translation is necessary at the 1394/USB interface.
(Ans. 5). Paragraph 30 of Chrysanthakopoulos demonstrates that this
interface is at PCl rather than PC2, so PCl is doing the USB/1394
translation by communicating directly with the USB device driver and
appearing as a 1394 printer on the 1394 bus. (Ans. 5). In other words, PCl
is translating between the USB and 1394 protocols. (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 4.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites "wherein the device is a laptop device and wherein the
input/ output components include a keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor."
Appellant argues "Chrysanthakopoulos does not teach or even suggest the
emulation of a keyboard, a mouse or a monitor." (App. Br. 13). Rather,
Appellants contend Chrysanthakopoulos "discloses the emulation of a
printer." (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' arguments are incommensurate with the scope of
claim 7. (Ans. 6). Claim 7 merely requires that the "input/output
components include a keyboard, a mouse, and a monitor." As the Examiner
points out, and we agree, the keyboard, mouse, and monitor input/output
components are shown in Figure 1 of Chrysanthakopoulos as elements 101,
102, and 107. (Ans. 6; see also Chrysanthakopoulos i-f 20). Moreover,
Chrysanthakopoulos broadly describes the ability "to emulate any desired
device" (i-f 10) and describes that "[t]he device 208 could be any device
5
Appeal2014-007310
Application 13/193,997
capable of being plugged into a PC such as a printer, a scanner, a DVD
drive, or the like." (Chrysanthakopoulos i-f 28; see also Abstract
("peripherals connected to the PC")). Therefore, we disagree with
Appellants that Chrysanthakopoulos merely discloses "the emulation of a
printer."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 7.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6