Ex Parte Somasekhar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

11993021 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111993,021 12/19/2007 Viswanath Somasekhar
56436 7590 10/31/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82189352 2805
EXAMINER
MIAH,RAZUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VISWANATH SOMASEKHAR
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN R. KENNY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-7, 19, 20, and 26-28. 2 Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 8-10, 21-23, and 29-31 are objected to, but are
indicated to be directed to allowable subject matter. Final Act. 16. Claims
11-18, 24, 25, and 32 are cancelled. 3 Final Act. 2.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company. App. Br. 1.
2 We find Appellant's statement that claims 1-18 are pending and under
appeal (App. Br. l; see also Notice of Appeal (Aug. 22, 2014)) to be an error
that is clerical in nature.
3 Although included in the Claims Appendix, claims 24, 25, and 32 are
cancelled. Compare Final Act. 2 and Amendment Filed with RCE (filed
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to device management across
a firewall, and more particularly relates to managing a device within a local
area network (LAN) coupled to a firewall from a host located outside the
firewall." Spec. 1 :4---6. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for managing one or more devices via an agent
located within a firewall and a local area network (LAN) by a
remote host located outside the firewall comprising:
creating an email device management protocol (EDMP)
at the remote host, the EDMP defining a first manner by which
a command to manage the one or more devices is sent by the
remote host to the agent and a second manner by which a
response to the command is sent by the agent to the remote
host, the EDMP specifying one of a simple mail transport
protocol (SMTP), a post office protocol 3 (POP3), and an
Internet message access protocol (IMAP) as a transport
mechanism to send the command and to send the response;
generating an Email at the remote host, the Email
including the EDMP and a payload data unit (PDU), the PDU
including the command and data related to the command; and,
transmitting the Email from the remote host to the agent
through the firewall.
Claims 1, 19, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)4 as being
unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2004/0093383 Al; May 13, 2004)
Jan. 26, 2012) 7, 9, with App. Br. 13, 15. Accordingly, they are not before
us.
4 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2.
2
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
(hereinafter "Huang") and Pearson et al. (US 2006/0090195 Al; Apr. 27,
2006) (hereinafter "Pearson"). See Final Act. 3-9.
Claims 2-7, 20, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huang, Pearson, and Siddiqui (US 2002/0002581
Al; Jan. 3, 2002). See Final Act. 10-16.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Aug. 29, 2014; "Reply Br." filed Feb. 4, 2015) and the
Specification5 ("Spec." filed Dec. 19, 2007) for the positions of Appellant
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed May 22, 2014) and Answer
("Ans." mailed Dec. 4, 2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUE
The issue presented by Appellant's contentions is whether the
Examiner errs in finding the combination of Huang and Pearson teaches or
suggests "creating an email device management protocol (EDMP) at the
remote host," as recited in claims 1, 19, and 26.6 We discuss the appeal by
reference to exemplary claim 1.
5 The record includes references both to the Specification as filed and to the
paragraphs of the corresponding published patent application, US
2010/0070582 Al. We refer herein only to the pages and line numbers of
the Specification as filed.
6 Appellant also presents arguments traversing a rejection for indefiniteness
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, that does not appear in the Final
3
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments and contentions (App. Br.
6-7; Reply Br. 1-2) in light of the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
explanations (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 5-7) regarding claim 1. We agree with
the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and explanations and, except as set
forth below, we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings,
and conclusions are for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Pearson, when combined with Huang, teaches
"creating an email device management protocol (EDMP) at [a] remote host"
(herein "creating an EDMP") as recited in claim 1. Final Act, 4--5 (citing
Pearson, Abstract, i-fi-f 15, 28); see also Ans. 5-7 (additionally citing Pearson
i-fi-129, 34--35, 45--47). The Examiner explains that in view of Appellant's
Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "creating an EDMP"
encompasses Pearson's teaching of generating a message with command
control information and transporting it using a standard messaging transport
protocol. Ans. 5-7 (quoting Spec. 2:11-19, 3:17--4:5, 12:7-97).
Appellant contends as follows:
The claim language recites creating an email device
management protocol (EDMP, or "protocol"). By comparison,
Huang in view of Pearson suggests that a message in accordance
with a standard (not a created) protocol is generated (see
Pearson, abstract, paras. [0015] & [0028], as relied upon on p. 5
of the final office action). As such, the prior art in combination
does not suggest a tenet of the claimed invention - that a
protocol is created.
Office Action. See App. Br. 5-6. As pointed out by the Examiner, this
argument is moot. See Ans. 4. Therefore, it merits no further discussion in
this Decision.
7 See n. 5 supra.
4
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
In this respect, the Examiner appears to have considered
the gist or thrust of the invention, without considering the
claimed invention as a whole, and thus without considering all
the words of the claim language, which is improper.
Specifically, the Examiner appears to have given short thrift to
the claim language that a protocol is created. This is because the
prior art in combination merely suggests that a standard and thus
preexisting protocol is merely used.
App. Br. 6-7. Appellant elaborates as follows:
[T]he Examiner's interpretation of the claim language creating a
protocol is not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the [S]pecification. Per representative claim 1, the claim
language as a whole recites creating a protocol, generating an
email (i.e., a message) including the protocol, and transmitting
the email. Under the Examiner's interpretation, claim l would be
distilled to generating a message (which the Examiner concludes
"creating a protocol" per the explicit claim language means),
generating a message including the message, and transmitting the
message.
Reply Br. 1.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellant's Specification
differentiates between a message, which it equates to an EDMP (see Spec.
3:28--4:3 ("[T]he term 'message' here refers to an EDMP (Email device
management protocol) created either by a remote host or an agent located
across a firewall for communication between the remote host and
the agent via the firewall.")), and an Email which transports the message
(see Spec. 3:27-28 ("[T]he term 'Email' refers to electronic mail, which is
the transmission of a message over communication networks.")) using a
standard Email protocol (Spec. 3:25-26, 8:2-7). The only passages of the
Specification Appellant points us to as describing "creating an EDMP" read
as follows (see App. Br. 2): "Remote Host to Build a Desired Command
5
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
and Attach a Payload." Spec., Fig. 1 (item 110). "At step 110, this example
method 100 begins by building a desired command and attaching an EDMP-
PDU to communicate with a device located across a firewall by a remote
host." Spec. 4:7-9. Accordingly, when read in light of Appellant's
Specification, "creating an EDMP" encompasses creating or formulating a
message containing a desired command. The message may then be included
in an Email to transport the message across the firewall using a standard
Email transport protocol. In other words, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "creating an EDMP" encompasses creating the command
content of a message to be transported as an Email across the firewall.
Appellant does not direct our attention to, nor do we find, any passage of the
Specification or other evidence that would lead us to a different construction
of "creating an EDMP."
Pearson teaches creating the command content of a message. Pearson
i-f 45 ("Method 300 also includes an act of automatically generating 310 a
message that includes the command/control information."). Pearson further
teaches that the message is included in an Email and transported using a
standard transport protocol, such as SMTP. Pearson i-f 4 7.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the Examiner does not err in
finding that Pearson, when combined with Huang, teaches "creating an
email device management protocol (EDMP) at the remote host," as recited
in claim 1. Therefore, Appellant fails to establish error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) independent claim 1;
(2) independent claims 19 and 26, which are argued together with claim 1
6
Appeal2015-003848
Application 11/993,021
(see App. Br. 6-7); and (3) dependent claims 2-7, 20, 27, and 28,8 which
variously depend from claims 1, 19, and 26, and are not separately argued
with particularity (see App. Br. 7).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 19, 20, and 26-28
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
8 We note that Appellant incorrectly identifies claims 8-11, 21-25, and 29-
32 as rejected. Compare App. Br. 7 with Final Act. 2, 16.
7