Ex Parte Cartes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

12082737 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/082,737 04/14/2008 Andrew C. Cartes
56436 7590 09/08/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82226297 9421
EXAMINER
SERRAO, RANODHI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 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
mkraft@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 ANDREW C. CAR TES, CHRISTOPHER J. FRANTZ, and
MICHAEL B. REED
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to remote management of computer systems.
Spec. ,-r 12.
Le
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for remote system management comprising:
establishing a connection between a remote console and a
managed server, the managed server comprising a management
controller, in which the management controller is operated
independent of the managed server; and
with the management controller:
detecting a change in the status of the connection;
and
issuing commands to the managed server to lock the
managed server using management traps if a change in the
status of the connection is detected.
REFERENCES
US 2005/0193118 Al Sept. 1, 2005
Enable Automatic Screen Lock Group Policy, Windows Vista Tips
(May 30, 2006), http://www.winvistatips.com/enable-automatic-screen-
lock-group-policy-t763603.html (visited Nov. 30, 2011) ("GPO").
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed March 18, 2015), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 23, 2014),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 20, 2015) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 25, 2014).
2
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
Remotely Anywhere, LogMein Remotely Anywhere User Guide,
LogMein, Inc., April 2007 ("Remotely").
Karen Scarfone & Murugiah Souppaya, User's Guide to Securing
External Devices for Telework and Remote Access, NIST, May 2007.
("Scarfone").
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Remotely, Le, and GPO. Final Act. 8-15.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Remotely and Le. Final Act. 15-17.
Claims 6-11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Remotely, Le, GPO, and Scarfone. Final
Act. 17-20.
Claims 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Remotely, Le, and Scarfone. Final Act. 21-25.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Remotely teaches a "management
controller [that] is operated independent of the managed server," as recited
in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 12 and
23?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a "managed server comprising a
management controller, in which the management controller is operated
independent of the managed server." Independent claims 12 and 23 recite
3
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
similar limitations. Claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24 and 25 are dependent upon
claims 1, 12, and 23, respectively.
The Examiner finds that Remotely teaches a "managed server
comprising a management controller, in which the management controller is
operated independent of the managed server." Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 3-4.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Remotely discloses a machine that
reads on the claimed "managed server," and Remotely discloses host
software that reads on the claimed "management controller." Final Act. 8-9;
Ans. 3--4. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the ability to operate the
host software (i.e., management controller) by a remote user over the
Internet at a different machine teaches that the management controller is
operated independently of the managed server, as required by the claims,
because the term "independent" in the claims means "not requiring or
relying on something else." Ans. 4 (citing http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/independent).
Appellants contend that because the host software runs on the
managed server (i.e., it is "executed by a processor on that machine"), the
management controller is not "operated independent" of the managed server.
App. Br. 10---12, 14-16; Reply Br. 5-8. We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner and Appellants agree that the plain and ordinary
meaning of "independent" is not requiring or relying on something else. 2
See Ans. 4; see also Reply Br. 5. Therefore, the claims require that the
management controller must be operated while not requiring or relying on
2 See independent, Merriam-Webster.com, available at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/independent (last visited July 28, 2016) ("not
requiring or relying on something else").
4
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
the managed server. Based on this interpretation, we disagree with the
Examiner that Remotely' s host software is operated without requiring or
relying on the machine. The Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that
Remotely teaches a remote user accessing and running the host software
using anything but the processor of the host machine. Rather, Remotely
discloses that the host software is "on the machine that is to be controlled or
accessed." Remotely 8. Thus, the Examiner fails to demonstrate how
Remotely teaches a "management controller [that] is operated independent
of the managed server," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 12 and 23. The additional references (Le,
GPO, and Scarfone) are not cited to teach or suggest the disputed limitation
and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether these additional
references cure the noted deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25.
This issue is dispositive with respect to the rejection of all of the
claims, and, therefore, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented
by Appellants. App. Br. 10---17; Reply Br. 4--9.
CONCLUSION3
The Examiner erred in finding Remotely teaches a "management
controller [that] is operated independent of the managed server," as recited
3 We note that Appellants' Specification describes a number of embodiments
where the managed server comprises a management controller-some where
the controller is physically incorporated into the managed server and others
where the controller is an internal or external unit (e.g., an expansion card or
add-in card). See Spec. i-fi-134 ("the remote management controller 164 does
not operate under the control of the processor 100, the memory 104, etc., of
the managed server 20"), 37 ("The remote management controller 164 may
5
Appeal2015-004756
Application 12/082,737
in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 12 and
23.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 23, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Remotely, Le, and GPO
is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Remotely and Le is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6-11 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Remotely, Le, GPO, and
Scarfone is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 13-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Remotely, Le, and Scarfone is
reversed.
REVERSED
be implemented so that it is powered and capable of operation regardless of
whether the managed server 20 is powered up or online."). We leave it to
the Examiner to determine whether there is sufficient support in the
Specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112 that describes a managed server
comprising a management controller where the management controller is
operated without requiring or relying on the managed server.
6