Ex Parte Faulk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201612748924 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121748,924 03/29/2010 Robert L. Faulk JR. 56436 7590 09/02/2016 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. 82262255 6164 EXAMINER JOSHI, SURAJ M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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 ROBERT L. FAULK JR. and JIM HICKEY Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,9241 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, and 14--18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 Invention The claimed invention relates to the compatible configuration of network devices. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A network device comprising one or more configurable features, the network device comprising: an interface to receive configuration data to configure a feature of the network device, the configuration data comprising feature configuration data and feature restriction data, wherein the feature restriction data comprises: a restriction placed on an attempt to configure the feature; and feature restriction removal data that defines a feature restriction removal condition, a detection of which causes the feature restriction data to be removed from the feature; a data store to store the received feature configuration data and feature restriction data; and logic to: determine whether the received feature configuration data is compatible with previously stored configuration data, and if so determined, configure the network device in accordance with the received feature configuration data; determine whether the received feature restriction data is compatible with the previously stored configuration data, and if so determined, store the received feature restriction data; monitor at least one of the network device and another device connected to the network device for an occurrence of the defined feature restriction removal condition; and 2 Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 delete, upon detection of the occurrence of the defined feature restriction removal condition, the feature restriction data associated with the detected feature restriction removal condition from the network device to allow the feature to function without restriction. App. Br. 19 (Claims App). Rejections Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Shafer (US 2011/0209203 Al; Aug. 25, 2011). Final Act. 5-11. Claims 14 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shafer and Halpern et al. (US 2005/0262225 Al; Nov. 24, 2005). Final Act. 11-14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Section 102 - Independent Claims 1, 10, and 15 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 15 because Shafer fails to disclose "monitor at least one of the network device and another device connected to the network device for an 3 Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 occurrence of the defined feature restriction removal condition; and delete, upon detection of the occurrence of the defined feature restriction removal condition, the feature restriction data," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 10 and 15. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 4--9. Appellants argue Shafer checks for a command from a user, but does not monitor a network device for an occurrence of the defined feature restriction removal condition. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 5, 6. Appellants also argue Shafer does not disclose that both the protection state and the list of users allowed to remove the protection state or their permissions are deleted upon detection of a command to remove the protection state. App. Br. 11, 12; Reply Br. 6- 8. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Shafer discloses: a device can have various configurations (configurable features), and wherein protections (feature restrictions) can be placed upon portions of the configuration information. Shafer further teaches, once a configuration is placed under a protected state, in order to remove the protected state, the following can take place, "receive a second command to remove the protected state associated with the configuration statement; and remove, in response to the second command, the protected state associated with the configuration statement," (Paragraph 6) and "As described herein, configuration information in a network device may be associated with a protection state, that may restrict the modification of portions of the configuration information that are set to the protected state. Commands may be used to set and remove the protection state from portions of the configuration information. An additional command may be used to specify which users are allowed to remove the protection state," (Paragraph 17). Thus, the system of Shafer teaches wherein command is received to remove a protected state (feature restriction data), which can be based upon additional information specifying which users are allowed to remove this state (feature restriction removal condition). Thus once the second command 4 Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 is received, the system will have to check whether the specific user is allowed to remove the protection state (Paragraph 17), and thus monitor whether this condition (whether the user has permission) is met, and if so, the protection state will be removed/deleted. Monitoring an occurrence of a condition essentially means to check for occurrence of the specific condition. Here, in Shafer, a monitoring/checking occurs, when there is a determination of whether the user is permitted to remove the protective state, which takes place upon the network device, as the network device contains a permission management component (Paragraphs 5---6 and 17). Furthermore, once the condition is met, and a user is determined to being able to remove the protective state, the protected state is removed, and thus the feature restriction data is removed/ deleted. Ans. 12-13 (citing Shafer, i-fi-15, 6, 17). Appellants' argument that Shafer monitors a command from a user but not a device, is not persuasive. Ultimately, users operate computer systems and networks through devices, so whether Shafer is monitoring a command from a user or a device is a distinction without merit, as one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate. Appellants' argument that Shafer fails to disclose deletion of the list of users allowed to remove the protection state or their permissions upon detection of a command to remove the protection state is also unpersuasive because the claim only recites "delete ... the feature restriction data associated with ... the condition ... to allow the feature to function without restriction." The Examiner finds, and we agree, Shafer discloses deletion of the protective state and the feature restriction data (Final Act. 7, 8) and Appellants' additional restriction of requiring deletion of the list of users and/or their permissions is not recited or required by claim 1. According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 5 Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 Section 103 - Dependent Claim 14 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 14 because the combination of Shafer and Halpern fails to teach or suggest "polling a status indicator of a device and detecting an interrupt." App. Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 9, 10. Appellants argue Halpern monitors a timeout period for editing a configuration and does not teach any type of polling to monitor the timeout period. App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue Halpern's timeout period does not provide a status of a device. Id. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree: [p ]olling is the checking of a device's status and the timeout [described by Halpern] indicates whether the device is in a configurable state or not. If the timeout period has not elapsed, the device [in Halpern] cannot be configured, but the status of device changes once the timeout period has elapsed. Thus in Halpern, the system performs monitoring by polling a timeout value (status indicator of the device) in order to determine whether further changes can be made to configuration data. Ans. 14 (explaining Halpern, i-f 50). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Shafer and Halpern teaches or suggests "polling a status indicator of a device and detecting an interrupt," as recited in dependent claim 14. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Remaining Claims Appellants have not presented separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16-18. See App. Br. 8-17. We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting these 6 Appeal2015-005964 Application 12/748,924 claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, and 14--18. 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