Ex Parte Canu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

12166356 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARCO CANU, SANDRO PICCININI,
LUIGI PICHETTI, and MARCO SECCHI
____________________

Appeal 2011-011502
Application 12/166,356
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011502
Application 12/166,356

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Marco Canu et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 1-12 and 14. Claim 13 is canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method, system and computer program
product for controlling multiple systems in a low bandwidth environment.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of controlling one or more client systems by
means of one or more server systems, comprising:
identifying a set of system control actions that occur as a
result of carrying out a particular function on the server system,
which function is required to be replicated on the one or more
client systems; and
sending the set of system control actions to any client
system which is connected to the server system to configure the
client system to carry out the system control actions and
thereby causing the client system to carry out the particular
function on the client system.

PRIOR ART
Capps US 6,735,691 B1 May 11, 2004

GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Capps.

Appeal 2011-011502
Application 12/166,356

3
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Capps discloses each and every limitation of
claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds that Capps discloses the step of
“identifying a set of system control actions that occur as a result of carrying
out a particular function on the server system, which function is required to
be replicated on the one or more client systems.” Ans. 3-4 (citing Capps,
Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 48-62, ll. 65-66; col. 4, ll. 1-7)(emphasis added). As an
explanation of this finding, the Examiner states that “manager 116 on the
server identifies and collects configuration information ([i.e.] system control
actions functions) like system settings, passwords, online account
information etc[.] from [the] client system and saves it to be implemented
onto another system.” Ans. 4.
Appellants note that “according to claim 1, it is the function on the
server that has to be replicated on a client.” App. Br. 13. Appellants argue
that “the Office Action has not identified any particular feature in Capps that
teaches or suggests the function on the server feature of claim 1.” Id.
Appellants further argue that “Capps merely replicates the configuration of a
source to a destination, to wit, Capps replicates the data resulting from
the action, which in turn results from the function, not the function
itself.” Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants restate this argument more
succinctly stating, “[c]arrying out a function is not the same as replicating a
function.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree. Although, Capps’ migration manager 116 is a function on
the server (Capps, Fig. 1), there is no indication in Capps that the migration
manager is replicated on a client system. Moreover, as the Examiner finds,
Capps discloses a system that “reliev[es] the user of the task of manually
Appeal 2011-011502
Application 12/166,356

4
configuring the destination computer system.” Ans. 10. In Capps, this is
accomplished by a server that collects configuration information from one
client computer and migrates that information to another client computer.
See Capps, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 22. Such migration of configuration
information does not meet the limitation at issue, because the function of
collecting the configuration information, which occurs on the server, is not
replicated on the client computer.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2-9 which depend therefrom. Claim 10 recites essentially the
same limitation as discussed for claim 1. Claims 12 and 14 also recite the
same limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 12, and 14, and claim 11 which depends from claim 10.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 and 14 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Klh