Ex Parte Von Bokern et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713726132 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation