Ex Parte Von Bokern et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13726132 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/726,132 12/23/2012 Vincent Edward Von Bokern 04796-1146 (P53221) 3918
106448 7590 02/02/2017
PATENT CAPITAL GROUP
2816 Lago Vista Lane
Rockwall, TX 75032
EXAMINER
ONAT, UMUT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
PAIR_106448 @patcapgroup.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT EDWARD VON BOKERN,
PURUSHOTTAM GOEL, and SVEN SCHRECKER
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify McAfee, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 23, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 6, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 7, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Apr. 8, 2016
(“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 8, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to hardware-based computer management.
(Spec. 11.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
identifying a first management controller of a first
computing device, the first management controller implemented
in hardware of the first computing device and independent of a
central processing unit (CPU) and operating system of the first
computing device;
querying the first management controller for attributes of
the first computing device;
receiving, from the first management controller, data
identifying one or more attributes of the first computing device,
wherein the data is secured to limit access by the operating
system of the first computing device;
identifying a first device driver for the first computing
device; and
communicating with the first computing device using the
first device driver.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 10-16, and 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Ellison et al. (US 7,231,449 B2; iss. June 12, 2007).
(Final Act. 3—15.)
Claims 3 and 7—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ellison
and Desai et al. (US 8,726,298 Bl; issued May 13, 2014). (Final Act. 16—
19.)
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ellison and
Greiner (US 2011/0145592 Al; pub. June 16, 2011). (Final Act. 20.)
2
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 22
A. “Attributes of the First Computing Device ”
Appellants contend Ellison does not disclose querying, by another
computing entity, a first management controller of a first computing device
for “attributes of the first computing device,” and receiving, from the
management controller, data identifying “one or more attributes of the first
computing device.” (App. Br. 7—8). Appellants argue it is unclear which
system in Ellison interacts with the interface controller (101) of the network
access point (402), identified by the Examiner as the “first management
controller,” to query and receive corresponding attribute data from the
network access point. (App. Br. 9.) Appellants contend Ellison’s network
drive labels do not disclose the claimed “attributes of the first computing
device” because the network-based shared drive labels do not pertain to the
attributes of the computing device (401), but instead are attributes of other
remote, shared drive devices that are external to the computing device and
are not managed by the interface controller. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-4.)
Appellants further argue the network username and password stored on the
interface controller within network access point cannot be interpreted as data
identifying attributes of the computing device itself. (App. Br. 9-10.)
Appellants’ contention regarding querying “by another computing
entity” is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which do not
require “another computing entity.” See In re Self 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (stating that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability). Although the claims are interpreted in light of
3
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “querying the first
management controller for attributes of the first computing device,”
consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, does not preclude Ellison’s method
of the interface controller’s processor (104) querying its non-volatile
memory (102) for configuration attributes that establish a connection
between the computer (401) and the network drives. (Ans. 8—12 (citing
Ellison col. 2:60-61 and col. 3:8—12, 22—28)). See In re Am. Acad. ofSci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is obligated to
give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ellison discloses a first
management controller (101) (Ans. 4 (citing Ellison col. 2:50—54 and Fig.
4)), implemented in hardware of a first computing device (401) and
independent of a central processing unit and operating system of the first
computing device (Ans. 6 (citing Ellison col. 2:58—66 and col. 6:37—39:
controller 101 is housed in computer 401, but has its own processor and
software)), querying the non-volatile memory of the first management
controller for attributes of the first computing device, i.e., attributes
including the computer (401) configuration data that allows network drives
to establish a connection to communicate with the computer (Ans. 8—10
(citing Ellison col. 3:8—12, 22—28)), and receiving, from the non-volatile
memory of the first management controller, the configuration data
identifying one or more attributes of the first computing device (id.).
4
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
B. “The Data is Secured to Limit Access ”
Appellants contend Ellison does not disclose “the data [identifying
one or more attributes of the first computing device] is secured to limit
access by the operating system of the first computing device,” because
Ellison’s network drive label attributes are shared with the operating system
of the computing device. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4.) Appellants argue,
although the network access information in Ellison is withheld from the
computing device, such network access information cannot be considered
attributes of the computing device. (Id. ) We are unpersuaded of error in the
rejection because, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Ellison’s network configuration data for the computing device that is
stored in the controller’s non-volatile memory discloses the claimed
“attributes,” and we further agree that such attribute data is secured to limit
access by the operating system of the first computing device by requiring an
administrator password to enter a configuration mode and access the
configuration data (Ans. 14 (citing Ellison col. 3:58—63)).
C. “A First Device Driver ”
Appellants contend Ellison does not disclose “identifying a first
device driver for the first computing device” and “communicating with the
first computing device using the first device driver,” because Ellison does
not use the “attributes” of the computing device to determine a driver for the
computing device. (App. Br. 7—8, 10.) We disagree with Appellants’
contention, as the claims do not require any specific relationship between
“querying the first management controller for attributes of the first
computing device” and “identifying a first device driver for the first
5
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
computing device.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ellison
discloses identifying and loading a first device driver, including a USB or
1394 interface driver, for use with the computing device, and the interface
controller and network drives communicating with the computing device
using the identified driver (Ans. 16 (citing Ellison col. 4:28—31)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,11, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ellison.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2—10, 12—
21, and 23. (See App. Br. 7, 10.) Thus, for reasons stated with respect to
independent claims 1,11, and 22, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
the dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4—6, 10—16,
and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 7—9, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal 2016-006405
Application 13/726,132
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
7