Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

11790672 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111790,672 04/26/2007 22879 7590 03/02/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR SamJ. Lee 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. 82231295 1976 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, ZIA UL A. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2192 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2016 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 Ex parte SAM J. LEE and SHEHZAAD B. BIDIW ALA Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 1 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23, and25. Claims 6, 16, and24have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (App. Br. 2). Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2003/0233646 Al; Dec. 18, 2003) in view of Zhang et al. ("A Modeling Perspective of Image Based Installation" Dell White Paper, Mar. 2000). THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention generally relates to "computing devices, and more particularly, to capturing and deploying an operating system in a computer environment." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; and independent claim 21 is directed to a system. App. Br. 11, 13, and 15. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for copying an operating system of a source computer to at least one target computer for execution by the at least one target computer, said source computer comprising a first storage device in which the operating system is stored and a second storage device, the method comprising: storing on said first storage device a file corresponding to and containing one or more settings of the operating system; dismounting the operating system in said source computer; removing from said first storage device selected operating system settings stored in connection with the operating system; copying from said first storage device to said second storage device an image of said operating system and the corresponding file; and 2 Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 deploying from said second storage device of said source computer to the at least one target computer said operating system image and said corresponding file. ANALYSIS vVe have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief: we agree with the Examiner that a11 the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. Vve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set fmih in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appellants' Appeal Brief vVe provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23. and 25 A .. ppellants argue Cohen and Zhang do not teach or suggest "dismounting the operating system in said source computer," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants contend Zhang's "shut[ting] down the normal operating system" does not teach or suggest the claimed "dismounting the operating system." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3; see Zhang pg. 8. This argument is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. During examination of a patent application, pending clams are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We look to the specification to see if it provides a 3 Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 definition of claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant. Id. The Examiner concludes the claimed "dismounting" includes Zhang' s "shut[ting] down the normal operating system on the source computer," which results in "the operating system stays isolated, and is prevented from accessing and/or writing to the storage device" and thereby is "under a dismount operation." Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner. While Appellants argue the claimed "dismounting" results in "the dismounted operating system is running entirely in RAM" and "has not been shut down," we agree with the Examiner that the specification provides merely an example of a "dismount operation." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3; see Spec. i-f 38; Ans. 3--4. Appellants have provided no limiting definition of a dismount operation, and Appellants' exemplary embodiment is merely a non-limiting example. Therefore, Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that dismounting an operating system does not include shutting down a normal operating system. Appellants further argue Cohen and Zhang do not teach or suggest "removing from said first storage device selected operating system settings stored in connection with the operating system," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants content Zhang's "source system ... had a network identity. . . [that] might have been removed during the process of freezing or buttoning-up the system for capture" does not teach or suggest the deleting from the source computer storage device selected operating system settings. Id .. 4 Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 The Examiner finds Zhang teaches "selected registry settings which includes network identity ... is removed/ deleted from intermediate file during freezing (shutting down) the normal operating system and capturing the operating system image for deployment," and new images are given new identities and duplicate IP addresses are avoided which would require removing, changing, replacing, or deleting an old identity. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner. As cited by the Examiner, Zhang describes: The source system at some point had a network identity. The identity might have been removed during the process of freezing or "buttoning-up" the system for capture. So the intermediate master file might or might not still have a network identity, depending on the details of the deployment system. In any case, the deployed copies of the source system must not be allowed to speak on the network with their old identities. On IP networks, for instance, this would result in "duplicate IP address" errors. Zhang, pg. 12 (emphasis added). In other words, Zhang' s network identity based on deployment system details teaches the claimed "selected operating system settings stored in connection with the operating system," and Zhang's removal of the network identity teaches the claimed "removing" of these operating system settings "from said first storage device." Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that removing selected operating system settings does not include removing a network identity based on deployment system details. A .. ccordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 11 and 21, \vhich are commensurate in scope with claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, and 25. 5 Appeal2014-004763 Application 11/790,672 DECISION The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23, and 25 are affirmed. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6