Ex Parte Irwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2012

09920756 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON PAUL IRWIN and ROGER TERRY FARMER
____________

Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,7561
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
methods for storing, retrieving, and managing configuration settings of
computer systems. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 The real party in interest is the NCR Corporation.
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and apparatus for storing, retrieving,
and managing registry settings for a computer system having handheld
platform operating software. A storage device and/or a network connection
to another storage device or computer system are used to
“mirror” the applicable parts of the registry to the storage device or network
computer system in order that the computer system-specific configuration
settings can be retrieved each time the computer system is booted.
(Abstract).
Claims 1-11 and 17-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads
as follows with the disputed limitation italicized:
1. A computer implemented method of configuring a
point of sale (POS) terminal to execute a handheld platform
operating software comprising the steps of:

reading generic configuration settings from a first local
storage device;

storing generic configuration settings in a memory;

conducting an automated search for and retrieval of
computer system-specific configuration settings by the
terminal, the automated search and retrieval comprising:

determining if first computer system-specific
configuration settings are stored on a second local storage
device coupled by a bus to a processor in the terminal, said first
computer system-specific configuration settings including at
least one of brightness, volume, and energy saving settings for
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

3
the POS terminal;

if said first computer system-specific configuration
settings are stored on said a second local storage device,
copying said first computer system-specific configuration
settings to said memory;

determining if second computer system-specific
configuration settings are stored on a network device accessed
through a network; and

if said second computer system-specific configuration
settings are stored on the network device, copying said second
computer system-specific configuration settings to said
memory;

setting a boot status setting; and

rebooting said POS terminal to execute the handheld
platform operating software according to computer system-
specific configuration settings stored in said memory.

Claims 1-11 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Paul (US 6,687,817 B1, issued Feb. 3, 2004, filed Nov. 14,
2000) and Williams (US 5,945,988, issued August 31, 1999). (Ans. 4-17).2

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed June 12, 2008, and the Examiner’s
Supplemental Answer (Ans.) mailed April 15, 2010.
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

4
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-11 and 17-23 under § 103 as
obvious. With respect to the contested limitation, the Examiner finds that
Paul discloses a computer-implemented method of configuring
a point of sale (POS) terminal to execute a handheld platform
operating software comprising the steps of: reading generic
configuration settings from a first local storage device and
storing generic configuration settings in a memory (writing
network configuration into a file on the first device such as
laptop device, see fig.3, col. 1 lines 32-55 and co1. 3 lines 19-
46).
(Ans. 4).
Appellants contend that the Examiner
argues that the limitation of determining if first computer
system-specific configuration settings are stored on a second
local storage device is satisfied by Paul's connecting the
terminal and the storage device through a network to provide
multicast messages, but the Applicant's respectfully disagree.
A second device connected to a first device through a network
is not a local device with respect to the first device; it is a
network-attached device, and communication between the
second device and the first device is mediated through various
network components.
(App. Br. 11).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: may a network-connected
device, as taught by Paul, be reasonably interpreted as constituting a local
device, as claimed?

Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 17-23
Appellants argue that claim 1 distinguishes between configuration
settings stored on a “local” device and configuration settings stored on a
device attached over a network. (See Spec. 11). Appellants specifically
contend that Paul retrieves the relevant settings via network means while the
Appellants claim retrieval by local means and that local means distinguish
over network means. (App Br. 11). However, Appellants’ Specification
discloses
[a] storage device and/or a network connection to another
storage device or computer system are used to “mirror” the
applicable parts of the configuration setting storage or registry
to the storage device or network computer system in order that
the terminal-specific configuration settings can be retrieved
each time the terminal is booted.
(Spec. 3-4). Appellants’ Specification further states
[t]he present invention uses a storage device and/or a network
connection to another storage device or computer system to
“mirror” the applicable parts of the registry to the storage
device or network computer system or storage device so the
computer system-specific configuration settings can be
retrieved each time the computer system is booted.
(Spec. 6).
Thus, Appellants’ Specification indicates that network and locally
connected devices are synonymous for purposes of the invention.
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

6
Furthermore, the cited art teaches a local connection (via a bus) and
computer system specific configuration settings:
Paul discloses the Appellant' invention except computer system
specific configuration settings including at least one of
brightness, volume, and energy saving settings and coupling by
a bus to a processor in the terminal. However, Williams
discloses computer system specific configuration settings
including at least one of brightness, volume, and energy saving
settings and coupling by a bus to a processor in the terminal
(configures system configuration settings of system in
accordance with the user preference information found in the
user profile corresponding to the identified user including
volume and using system controller 500 includes high
performance input/output (I/O) bus 506 and standard I/O bus
508, and host bridge 510 coupling processor 502 to high
performance I/O bus 506, see abstract, figs.2, 5, co1. 5 line 30
to co1. 6 line 32 and col. 11 line 45 to col. 12 line 61).
(Ans. 19-20).
Appellants additionally contend that because Paul and Williams relate
to different types of data, no motivation exists to combine their teachings.
(See App. Br. 11). The motivation to make such a combination is present in
the references. Both cited references disclose processing the user’s
preference or configuration settings in a communication network.
Moreover, incorporation of Williams’s teachings into Paul’s computer
system would have enabled users to monitor and update a wide range of
configurable options in a profile database and configured to control each of
the entertainment system components of system in a communications
network (Ans. 20)(citing Williams, co1. 5, lines 8-28). In view of the
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

7
foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claim 1.
Appellants present essentially the same arguments regarding claims 4,
6, 17, 18, 20, and 22. (See App. Br. 13-19). Appellants did not file a Reply
Brief. We are similarly unpersuaded of error in regards to claims 4, 6, 17,
18, 20, and 22. Claims 2, 3, 7-11, 19, 21, and 23 are not separately argued.
Claim 5
Appellants argue that the combination of Paul and Williams does not
provide sending a configuration request to a “specifically-identified device,”
as claimed in claim 5. (App. Br. 14-15). The Examiner finds that Paul
discloses requesting data from a specifically identified device over a
network, i.e., sending a “configuration pending” message from the
configuration device to mark the message for the new device, see col. 3, line
29 to col. 4, line 11). (Ans. 20-21). In the passage cited by the Examiner,
Paul discloses “[t]he configuration request message is sent to a
predetermined multicast port on the configuration computer 300.” (Col. 3,
lines 41-43). As such, the passage cited by the Examiner does teach sending
a request to a “specifically-identified device.” Thus, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error respecting claim 5.

DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious.
Appeal 2010-010055
Application 09/920,756

8
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

rwk