Ex Parte Van Dorsselaer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

12912438 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/912,438 10/26/2010 Rudolf Erik Van Dorsselaer 82264328 2041
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
DINH, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUDOLF ERIK VAN DORSSELAER
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed October 26, 2010
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed April 6, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed October 16, 2015 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 24, 2016 (“Ans.”).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (HPDC), a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-
Packard Company. The general or managing partner of HPDC is HPQ
Holdings, LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-13, 15—16, 19, and 20 are rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated over Ayyagari
(US 2002/0062405 Al, published May 23, 2002) (“Ayyagari”);
Rejection 2: Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious obvious over Ayyagari in view of Stamler et
al. (US 2010/0042708 Al, published February 18, 2010) (“Stamler”);
Rejection 3: Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Ayyagari in view of Lassonde et al.
(US 2011/0010708 Al, published January 13, 2011) (“Lassonde”); and
Rejection 4: Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ayyagari in view of Dahlstedt
(US 2008/0034365 Al, published February 7, 2008) (“Dahlstedt”).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1 — Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 16, 19, and 20
We focus our discussion with regard to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 16, 19,
and 20 on independent claim 1, which Appellant identifies as representative
of those claims (Br. 8).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, reads:
A non-transitory computer readable medium including
programming for execution by a processor, the programming,
when executed by the processor, implementing a method for
deploying a software program on a target computing device,
comprising:
2
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
receiving late-binding configuration actions;
combining the late-binding configuration actions with a
generic desired-state model and configuration data specific to
the target computing device to produce a final configuration
model; and
providing the final configuration model to the target
computing device, wherein the final configuration model is
executed by the target computing device to configure the target
computing device with the software program.
Br. i (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 15 is directed to a method for deploying a software
program on a target computing device that includes similar recitations to
claim 1, particularly regarding “receiving late-binding configuration actions”
and “combining the late-binding configuration actions with a generic
desired-state model and configuration data specific to the target computing
device to produce a final configuration model.”
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). To
serve as an anticipatory reference, “the reference must disclose each and
every element of the claimed invention.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
The Examiner finds that Ayyagari discloses a non-transitory medium
and method including programming for execution by a processor, the
programming, when executed by the processor, implementing a method for
deploying a software program on a target computing device as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Ayyagari || 32, 34—36, 38, 39, 46, and 49—
51; Fig. 5). Specifically, the Examiner finds that step 510 in Ayyagari’s
Figure 5 discloses “receiving late-binding configuration actions.” Final
3
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
Act. 5 (citing Ayyagari || 39, 46; Fig. 5). In addition, the Examiner finds
that in step 520 in Figure 5, Ayyagari teaches combining the late-binding
configuration actions with a generic desired-state model (Figure 3, 312) and
configuration data specific to the target computing device (each TCP/IP
address) to produce a final configuration model (Figure 3, 342). Final
Act. 4—5.
Ayyagari discloses that during “get late-bind information”
operation 510, initialization file 432 and configuration file 342 are retrieved
from pre-installation package 122<2, and after get late-bind operation 510 and
during late-bind operation 520, each token (symbol or label) from
configuration file 342 is bound to the dynamic information from
initialization file 432. Ayyagari 146; Fig. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Ayyagari
discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including
programming for execution by a processor, the programming, when
executed by the processor, implementing a method for deploying a software
program on a target computer device comprising “receiving late-binding
configuration actions,” and “combining the late-binding configuration
actions with a generic desired-state model and configuration data specific to
the target computing device to produce a final configuration model.” See
Br. 9—11 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellant argues that Ayyagari
fails to disclose that “dynamic information from initialization file 432”
includes any “configuration actions.” Id. at Br. 9—10. Rather, Appellant
contends that “dynamic information from initialization file 432” is specific
settings such as a TCP/IP address, software serial numbers, and CD-ROM
drive letters. Br. 10 (citing Ayyagari 133). Appellant further contends that
4
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
it is not reasonable in view of Appellant’s Specification to interpret the
phrase “configuration actions” as encompassing system settings (dynamic
information) as described in Ayyagari. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner explains that:
Ayyagari discloses in figure 7 that configuration file 312 of pre­
installation 122s is loaded into pre-installation package 122p
and combined with LateBind values to become file
configuration 342, and further file configuration 342 is loaded
into pre-installation packages 122d, where package 122d
contains late-bind 520 which are file configuration 342 and file
LateBind (see figure 5, operation 520).
Ans. 4—5. The Examiner thus finds that Ayyagari discloses a plurality of
“configuration actions” while creating the final configuration model, i.e.,
loading configuration file from pre-installation package 122s to 122p, and
from 122p to 122d. Ans. 5 (citing Ayyagari Figs. 5, 7).
On this record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden to establish that independent claim 1 is anticipated
by Ayyagari. The Examiner does not construe the phrase “configuration
actions.” See generally Final Act.; see also generally Ans. In the absence of
a claim construction, on this record, the Examiner has not adequately
explained how dynamic information from initialization file 432 falls within
the scope of “configuration actions.” Compare Spec. 3,1. 13 —4,1. 12
(describing “configuration actions” as involving control over the operating
system deployment (e.g., how objects should be deployed (i.e., the
configuration actions related to software programs)) with Ayyagari 17
(describing “dynamic information” as information unique to every copy of
installation, such as software serial number, internet protocol addresses, and
5
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
CD-ROM drive letter). Likewise, the Examiner has not adequately
explained how loading configuration file from pre-installation package 122s
to 122p, and from 122p to 122d falls within the scope of any “configuration
actions.” We are, therefore, left to speculate as to how the cited portions of
Ayyagari anticipate claim 1, which we decline to do here in the first instance
on appeal. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 16, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Ayyagari.
Rejection 1 — Claims 10—13
We focus our discussion of claims 10—13 on independent claim 10.
Independent claim 10, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief, reads:
A system for configuring a target computing device with a
software program, comprising:
a model server to:
receive late-binding configuration actions and a
request to initiate deployment of the software program to
the target computing device, and
construct a target computing device-specific model
using a generic desired-state model and configuration
data specific to the target computing device; and
a target proxy server, coupled to the model server, to
construct, using the target computing device-specific model
and the late-binding configuration actions, a final configuration
model to control deployment of the software program on the
target computing device.
Br. ii (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds that Ayyagari’s factory server 140 corresponds to
Appellant’s “model server” and factory server 140 is coupled to lab
server 120 via network connection 125. Final Act. 7.
6
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Ayyagari
discloses “a target proxy server” coupled to a model server “to construct,
using the target computing device-specific model and the late-binding
configuration actions, a final configuration model to control deployment of
the software program on the target computing device.” See Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Ayyagari describes something
substantially different, namely that “factory server” receives a “pre­
installation package” that is stored on lab server 120. Br. 7 (citing
Ayyagari H 24-29; Fig. 1).
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds that a
factory 130 corresponds to “a target proxy server.” Ans. 3.
On this record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner has
failed to meet the burden to establish that the independent claim 10 is
anticipated by Ayyagari. Ayyagari discloses lab server 120 includes pre­
installation package 122s. Ayyagari || 24—25. Pre-installation
package 122s includes various software applications and configuration
information that is generic to many target computers. Id. Tf 25. Pre­
installation package 122s is initialized for subsequent late-binding to provide
pre-bound pre-installation package 122, and then pre-installation package
122p is loaded from lab server 120 to factory server 140 via network
connection 125. Id. 126. Ayyagari further discloses that factory server 140
adds dynamic information (e.g., software serial number and internet protocol
addresses (Ayyagari 17) from script file 144 to pre-installation
package 122p to provide dynamic pre-installation packages 122<2-1, 122d-2
through \22d-n which are loaded to target computer systems 150-1, 150-2
through 150-w, respectively, via network connection 145. Id. According to
7
Appeal 2016-006045
Application 12/912,438
Ayyagari, factory site 130 includes factory server 140 and target computer
systems 150-1, 150-2 through 150-n, generally referred to as target computer
systems 150. Ayyagari 124; Fig. 1. Ayyagari’s disclosure, however, does
not support the Examiner’s finding that lab server 120 or factory site 130 is
“a target proxy server” coupled to a model server “to construct, using the
target computing device-specific model and the late-binding configuration
actions, a final configuration model to control deployment of the software
program on the target computing device.” Indeed, as discussed above with
regard to claim 1, the Examiner has not established that Ayyagari discloses
“late-binding configuration actions.” Thus, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 10—13 as anticipated by Ayyagari.
Rejections 2—4
The Examiner relies upon the factual determinations made in the
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,10, and 15 in each of the
obviousness rejections. Because the anticipation rejection is based on
erroneous factual determinations, as discussed above, we reverse the
additional obviousness rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are
reversed.
REVERSED
8