Ex Parte Shaver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

13250399 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/250,399 09/30/2011
22879 7590 04/29/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles N. Shaver
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.
82749230 8093
EXAMINER
PARK,ILWOO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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 CHARLES N. SHA VER and SHIH-WEI SUN
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to selectively disabling a network interface of a
computer device based on detection of usage of an input combination
interface (e.g., a USB port) of the device in order to save power (see Spec.
i-f 13). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computing device comprising:
an input combination interface;
a network interface to communicate via a local area
network (LAN); and
a switching circuit to disable the network interface based
on detection of usage of the input combination interface.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hamdi et al.
Laity et al.
Jain et al.
US 6,408,351 June 18, 2002
US 2003/0135681 Al July 17, 2003
US 2012/0246458 Al Sept. 27, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jain and Hamdi.
2
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jain, Hamdi, and Laity.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Jain and Hamdi fails to
disclose the claim 1 limitation of "a switching circuit to disable the network
interface based on detection of usage of the input combination interface"
because "nowhere does Jain disclose that the Ethernet port 165 is disabled
based on detection of usage of the communication port 260" (App. Br. 5).
Appellants further argue "Jain does not specifically describe disabling the
external ports when the communication port 260 is in use" (App. Br. 6). In
other words, "[n]owhere does Jain describe to disable any of the external
ports 240 simply because the communication port 260 is being used, as
required by claim 1" (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
We first note that the Examiner does not rely on Jain's Ethernet port
165 for disclosing the claimed "network interface," as argued by Appellants
(see App. Br. 5). Rather, the Examiner relies on Jain's external ports
240(1 }-240(N) for this feature (Final Act. 3, Ans. 12). As discussed below,
we agree with the Examiner that Jain discloses disabling at least one external
port, i.e., the "network interface," according to the language of claim 1.
Jain discloses a thin client device 200 with a controller 210, a
communication port 260 (e.g., a USB port) connected to a host device 100,
and a number of external ports 240( 1 }-240(N) (see Jain, i-fi-f 12, 14, 21; Fig.
1 ). "The communication link 27 5 between communication ports 150 [on the
host device] and 260 [on the thin client device] serves as an administrator
interface through which the host device 100 supplies information, such as
the amount of power available to this system" (Jain, i120). Accordingly, the
3
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
"controller 210 discovers the power available to the system after
communicating with the processor 110 [in the host device]" (Jain, i-f 32).
Then "an optimal power configuration for the external ports is determined
based on the available power" and "control signals for the power switches
for the external ports are generated to control power to the external ports
based on the optimal configuration," including setting the operational state
of an external port to "Power Off' (Jain, i-fi-133-34). We agree with the
Examiner (see Final Act. 3, Ans. 14--15), and find Jain's disclosure of
controlling the external ports, including setting a port to "Power Off," based
upon available power information transmitted via communication port 260
meets the claim 1 limitation, "a switching circuit to disable the network
interface based on detection of usage of the input combination interface."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Jain fails to show
disabling the external ports "when the communication port 260 is in use" or
"because the communication port 260 is being used" (App. Br. 6) because
this language is not recited in claim 1. Rather, claim l recites "disable the
network interface based on detection of usage of the input combination
interface." We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 14--15) that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "detection of usage of the input combination
interface" encompasses Jain's determining the available power through the
use of communication port 260 (see Jain, i-fi-120, 32-34). Specifically, the
language "detection of usage" is not limited to simply determining whether
the input combination interface is or is not in use. Rather, the meaning of
"usage" includes the way in which something is used. Accordingly, the
scope of "detection of usage of the input combination interface," based upon
the plain meaning of "usage," covers determining information through the
use of the input combination interface. Jain's powering off of an external
4
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
port-the claimed "network interface"-is based upon the power availability
information gleaned through use of the communication port 260---the
claimed "input combination interface" (see Jain, i-fi-132-34). Thus, we find
Jain discloses "a switching circuit to disable the network interface based on
detection of usage of the input combination interface," as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' Reply Brief
argument that "Jain actually discloses shutting down other components in
favor of maintaining operation of the external ports. Nowhere does Jain
disclose shutting down any external port 'based on detection of usage of
any input combination interface." (Reply Br. 2). Indeed, Jain discloses one
example of an "optimal power configuration may involve shutting down
some of the features of the thin client device 200" such as "'core' functions
[which] may not be necessary and can be shut down in favor of operation of
one or more external ports" (Jain, i133). However, Jain also discloses an
example where "the power optimization process logic 300 can choose to
enable only one USB port and one external display port" (Jain, i138). This
second example would require disabling at least one external port because
Jain's thin client device contains multiple external ports (see Jain, i138). In
any case, Jain discloses that "Power Off' is among the operational states for
the external ports in response to control signals generated based upon an
optimal configuration (see Jain, i134). This suggests that an optimal
configuration can involve disabling at least one external port.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-15 not specifically argued separately.
5
Appeal2014-004868
Application 13/250,399
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 are
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