Ex Parte Ashok et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13854200 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
13/854,200 04/01/2013 Rohith K. Ashok RSW920130019US2 3753
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
HASSAN, AURANGZEB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHITH K. ASHOK, MICHAEL J. BURR,
HUGH E. HOCKETT, MICHAEL S. LAW,
and MATTHEW J. SHEARD
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—4 and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 5 and 6 have been indicated as allowable (Advisory Action of April
7, 2015). Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 are not before us.
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a universal serial
bus (USB) key functioning as multiple USB keys so as to efficiently
configure different types of hardware of a cloud computing environment
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for efficiently configuring different types of
hardware components, the method comprising:
preloading a data storage device with a plurality of
profiles, wherein each of said plurality of profiles contains
a configuration file associated with a particular type of
hardware component and rules for presenting said
configuration file to said particular type of hardware
component, wherein said data storage device comprises a
flash memory with an integrated Universal Serial Bus
(USB) interface;
plugging said data storage device into a first hardware
component;
recognizing said first hardware component out of a
plurality of hardware components;
identifying a first profile out of said plurality of profiles
containing a first configuration file associated with said
first hardware component in response to recognizing said
first hardware component; and
presenting, by a controller, said first configuration file to
said first hardware component based on said rules of said
first profile.
2
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lee US 2005/0080973 Al Apr. 14, 2005
Brundridge et al. US 2009/0144469 Al June 4, 2009
Koponen et al. US 2013/0060929 Al Mar. 7,2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee and Brundridge (Final Act. 2-4).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Brundridge, and Koponen (Final Act. 4—5).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—4
Appellants contend their invention, as recited in claims 1—4, is not
obvious over Lee and Brundridge (App. Br. 2—24).2 The issue presented by
the arguments is:
Issue: Does the combination of Lee and Brundridge teach, suggest, or
otherwise render obvious
preloading a data storage device with a plurality of profiles,
wherein each of said plurality of profiles contains a configuration
file associated with a particular type of hardware component and
rules for presenting said configuration file to said particular type
of hardware component, wherein said data storage device
2 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
comprises a flash memory with an integrated Universal Serial
Bus (USB) interface,
as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Lee’s USB device 50 with the memory 66,
teaches the claimed “data storage device”; the host computer 12 teaches the
claimed “first hardware component”; and the plurality of device drivers
teaches the claimed “plurality of profiles” (Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3).
According to the Examiner, because each of the hardware components may
have different operating systems, different configuration files would be
required (Ans. 3). Thus, the Examiner finds the claims do not preclude Lee
from functioning wherein a first hardware device loaded with one operating
system is different from a second hardware device loaded with a different
operating system (id.).
Appellants argue the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “profile” is
in error as the Examiner’s interpretation is not the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with their Specification or consistent with the
meaning an ordinarily skilled artisan would assign the term (App. Br. 5).
Thus, according to Appellants, Lee’s device driver does not teach the recited
plurality of profiles, each of which “contains a configuration file associated
with a particular type of hardware component and rules for presenting said
configuration file to said particular type of hardware component” (id. at 5—
7).
Moreover, Appellants assert Lee does not teach preloading a data
storage device with a plurality of profiles; rather, Lee teaches when a new
hardware component is installed on the computer system, a user installs a
4
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
corresponding device driver so the operating system is capable of driving the
added hardware component (App. Br. 10).
We agree with Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner has failed to
show Lee teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious the disputed
limitation. More specifically, in contrast to the Examiner’s finding that
Lee’s memory 66 stores a plurality of drivers (Final Act. 2—3 (citing Lee
129, Fig. 4 (element 114))), we find Lee teaches “the memory 66 stores a
device driver 70 of the WLAN [module] 58” (Lee 129 (emphasis added)).
Indeed, paragraph 29, which the Examiner identifies, teaches only that a
memory stores “a” device driver and not a plurality of device drivers (id.).
Thus, we are persuaded Lee does not teach or suggest a plurality of
profiles as claimed. Furthermore, although we agree with the Examiner that
an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand different operating systems
may require different configuration files (Ans. 3), we are not persuaded Lee
teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious preloading the data storage
device (USB device 50) with a plurality of profiles.
The Examiner further finds Lee teaches each of the plurality of
profiles contains a configuration file associated with a particular type of
hardware component and rules for presenting, specifically in paragraph 32 of
Lee (Final Act. 2). However, we are persuaded the Examiner has not shown
with particularity where Lee teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious
the disputed limitation. In particular, paragraph 32 of Lee, on which the
Examiner relies, describes a display module 63 having two light emitting
diodes (LEDs) used for indicating to a user the current operating statuses
associated with the personal disk 56 and the WLAN module 58 (Lee 132).
The Examiner further identifies Lee’s interaction of the hardware component
5
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
and configuration file to determine the driver profile to be loaded, as
described in paragraph 30 of Lee, as teaching “wherein each of said plurality
of profiles contains a configuration file associated with a particular type of
hardware component and rules for presenting said configuration file to said
particular type of hardware component” (Final Act. 3). However, we are not
persuaded Lee teaches each of the profiles contains a configuration file and
rules for presenting, as recited.
Moreover, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Lee’s driver to teach a configuration file. Rather, we adopt
a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claim term “configuration file”
in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with
Appellants’ Specification—“[a] file that contains machine-readable
operating specifications for a piece of hardware or software that contains
information on another file or on a specific user, such as the user’s logon
ID” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary 123 (5th ed. 2002)). (See also “device
driver” defined as “[a] software component that permits a computer system
to communicate with a device” (id. at 155)). In light of this interpretation,
we are not persuaded Lee’s device driver teaches or suggests a configuration
file, and the Examiner has not set forth with particularity why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood Lee’s device driver to teach, suggest,
or otherwise render obvious a configuration file.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants’ assertions and determine the
Examiner has not shown Lee teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious
the disputed limitation:
preloading a data storage device with a plurality of profiles,
wherein each of said plurality of profiles contains a configuration
6
Appeal 2016-002402
Application 13/854,200
file associated with a particular type of hardware component and
rules for presenting said configuration file to said particular type
of hardware component, wherein said data storage device
comprises a flash memory with an integrated Universal Serial
Bus (USB) interface,
as recited in claim 1. Claims 2—4 depend from independent claim 1 and thus
stand with claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims
1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Lee and Brundridge.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1. The Examiner has not
shown Koponen cures the deficiencies of Lee and Brundridge. Accordingly,
we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Lee, Brundridge, and Koponen.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee and Brundridge is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Brundridge, and Koponen is reversed.
REVERSED
7