Ex Parte Crosbie

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11333092 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
11/333,092 01/17/2006 David Bruce Crosbie 0521US-Leostream 5728
23521 7590 11/01/2012
SALTAMAR INNOVATIONS
1 Mathewson Road
Barrington, RI 02806
EXAMINER
JACOBS, LASHONDA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID BRUCE CROSBIE
____________________

Appeal 2010-006711
Application 11/333,092
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, TREVOR JEFFERSON, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006711
Application 11/333,092

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24, all the claims pending in the application. Claims 25-37 were
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant discloses a method of transferring operating environments
between computers (Spec. ¶ [0001]) including making modifications to an
original computer environment, such as boot paths or installing drivers
needed on the target system, so that a computing image can be created to
boot-up the target computer (Spec. ¶ [0043]).
Exemplary Claim
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphases added:
1. A method for transferring a data image from an origin computer
coupled to at least one storage medium, and origin operating system
and computing environment image stored on the medium, to a second
computer, the method comprising the steps of:
executing a host agent on the second computer;
on the origin computer under control of the origin operating
system:
profiling the origin computer;
modifying certain origin computer configuration parameters to
fit the target computer configuration;

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed January 22, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 26, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 2, 2010).
Appeal 2010-006711
Application 11/333,092

3
reading a data image of the storage medium, and transmitting
the image to the host agent for making an image bootable on the
second computer, or on a virtual machine executed thereon;
wherein the image reflects changes made to the configuration
parameters during the step of modifying, prior to the step of
transmitting.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Larvoire (U.S. Patent No. 6,804,774 B1 (filed August 2,
2000)). Ans. 3-7.
Appellant’s Contentions2
Appellant contends (App. Br. 11-26; Reply Br. 1-4) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Larvoire for numerous reasons, including Larvoire fails to disclose “on
the origin computer under control of the origin operating system . . .
modifying certain origin computer configuration parameters to fit the target
computer configuration,” as recited in claim 1.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Larvoire because Larvoire fails to disclose:
“on the origin computer under control of the origin operating system . . .
modifying certain origin computer configuration parameters to fit the target
computer configuration,” as recited in claim 1?

2 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues. Some
of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by this issue and as such we do not
reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2010-006711
Application 11/333,092

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-26) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 1-4) that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s above
contention (App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 3) that Larvoire fails to disclose “on
the origin computer under control of the origin operating system . . .
modifying certain origin computer configuration parameters to fit the target
computer configuration,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner determines (Ans. 3, 7-8) that Larvoire meets the
limitation at issue because Larvoire discloses a software image transition aid
that makes modifications to the image file created from the source computer
(Larvoire, col. 2, ll. 6-44, col. 3, ll. 12-31, and col. 5, ll. 36-46). Larvoire,
however, discloses booting the target PC from the bootable storage media
and then running a program, stored on the bootable storage media, to
analyze and make changes to the software image (col. 3, ll. 32-40). In short,
Larvoire discloses making changes to the image file on the target system, not
the origin computer. Because Larvoire does not disclose “modifying certain
origin computer configuration parameters to fit the target computer
configuration” on the origin computer, we will not sustain the § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1-24.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Larvoire
because Larvoire fails to disclose “on the origin computer under control of
the origin operating system . . . modifying certain origin computer
Appeal 2010-006711
Application 11/333,092

5
configuration parameters to fit the target computer configuration,” as recited
in claim 1.
(2) On this record, claims 1-24 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw