Ex Parte Oates et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 5, 201411685407 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHEN OATES, KEVIN HANES, MARC JARVIS, and JEFFERSON RALEY __________ Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Stephen Oates, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for optimizing deployment of an information handling system comprising loading a superset of content onto the information handling system being deployed; storing a deployment front end on the information handling system being deployed; generating a manifest representing content to be loaded onto the information handling system; upon booting the information handling system being deployed, executing the deployment front end, the deployment front end gathering data to drive deployment of the information handling system; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Jan. 7, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 1, 2011). Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 3 installing a specific subset of the content from the superset of content based upon the manifest, the installing using the deployment front end; pre-staging the superset of content on the information handling system being deployed, and wherein the superset of content comprises multiple customer images, multiple customer applications, data migration tools, and installation automation tools. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Klemba Chen US 7,055,040 B2 US 2006/0129769 A1 May 30, 2006 Jun. 15, 2006 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Klemba. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen and Klemba? FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 4 ANALYSIS The Appellant argued claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 as a group (Br. 3). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 4-6 9-11, 14, and 15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner’s position is that Chen expressly discloses all the claims steps but for installing a specific subset of the content from the superset of content based upon the manifest, the installing using the deployment front end; pre-staging the superset of content on the information handling system being deployed, and wherein the superset of content comprises multiple customer images, multiple customer applications, data migration tools, and installation automation tools. Claim 1. Klemba is relied upon as disclosing these limitations. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention to modify Chen's use of a replacement server deployment system with Klemba's use of deploying a system image on another system in order to simplify the management and to uniquely and securely load software to an individual computer. Ans. 9. See also Br. 3-5. The Appellants challenge the rejection, arguing that while Chen discloses data migration from a legacy information handling system to a replacement information handling system, neither Chen or Klemba disclose or suggest a method for optimizing deployment of an information handling system, much less such a method which includes loading a superset of Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 5 content onto the information handling system being deployed and loading a specific subset of the content from the superset of content based upon the manifest, much less pre-staging the superset of content on the information handling system being deployed, much less where the superset of content comprises multiple customer images, multiple customer applications, data migration tools, and installation automation tools, all as required by claim 1 and as substantially required by claims 6 and 11. Br. 5. Emphasis original. The argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. The specific disclosures the Examiner relied upon as evidence to support his finding that the claimed subject matter at issue was known in the prior art have not been addressed. The Appellants do little more than point out what the claim recites (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv)), effectively overlooking the Examiner’s extensive fact-finding. See the Fin. Rej. at 6-10 (mailed Aug. 20, 2010). Be that as it may, Chen discloses a replacement information handling system that will be deployed to the customer and provides a method “for loading a superset of content onto the information handling system being deployed” (claim 1, emphasis added) as reasonably broadly construed. The claim phrase “information handling system being deployed” is not expressly defined in the Specification and the Appellants do not point us to any. Accordingly, we give it the broadest reasonable interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would give it in light of the Specification; that is, an information handling system that will be deployed. The Appellants agree that Chen discloses data migrated from a legacy information handling system to a replacement information handling system. Br. 5. Chen’s Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 6 replacement information handling system is an information handling system that will be deployed to the customer. This is so because as Chen (paras. [0014]-[0015]) explains, an organization’s data is migrated from an old legacy system to a new replacement system by the system’s manufacturer and “[a]fter data migration, the newly manufactured systems are returned to the organization to replace the existing systems complete with the migrated data.” Id. at [0015]. Thus, Chen’s replacement information handling system is an “information system being deployed” as that phrase is reasonably broadly construed. Furthermore, Chen’s data migration amounts to a “loading” of information onto the deployed system because the information is installed on the new system. See at least Fig. 2 and para. [0016]. The information Chen loads - e.g., templates, applications, and scripts (para. [0009]) - is a “superset of content” as that claim phrase is reasonably broadly construed. Therefore, Chen not only discloses a replacement information handling system that will be deployed to the customer but also provides a method “for loading a superset of content onto the information handling system being deployed” (claim 1, emphasis added). For the foregoing reasons, the Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection. The Appellants also argue that a deployment front end as disclosed and claimed in the present application is patentably distinct over a data migration application as disclosed by Chen. A data migration application is used to aid in the smooth processing of multiple data Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 7 migrations (see e.g., Chen ¶ 0017) whereas a deployment front end is stored on the information handling system being deployed and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a specific subset of content on the information handling system. Br. 6. The distinction the Appellants are making for the claimed “deployment front end” over Chen’s “data migration application” is that the claimed “deployment front end” is “stored on the information handling system being deployed and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a specific subset of content on the information handling system.” Br. 6. But the Examiner is equating the Data Migration Application 22 on the Data Migration Handling System Server 18 (see Fig. 1) to the the claimed “deployment front end.” See Ans. 5 (“Data migration application is the front end that gathers the data to deploy.”) And that data migration application 22 which is run by the replacement information handling system in order to load/gather information from the legacy information handling system to the replacement information handling system (see para. [0017]) appears to be “stored on the information handling system being deployed and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a specific subset of content on the information handling system” (Id. at 6). The Appellants’ criticize Chen’s “data migration application [because it] is used to aid in the smooth processing of multiple data migrations.” Id. In fact, it is not Chen’s “data migration application” 22 which is used for that purpose but Chen’s “[d]ata migration monitor application 30” (see para. [0017]). Appeal 2011-011530 Application 11/685,407 8 Because the Appellants focused on Chen’s “data migration monitor application 30” rather than the “data migration application 22” the Examiner relied upon in rejecting the claimed subject matter, the Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation