Ex Parte Hardy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

11524105 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111524,105 0912012006 Michael Hardy
39072 7590 06/17/2016
AT&T Legal Department - MB
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
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.
060013 (9400-309) 7434
EXAMINER
KEEHN, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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 MICHAEL HARDY, JAMES N. ENTREKIN,
and RICHARD ANTHONY GLENN
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
formatting added):
1. A method for determining a status of advertised system
management server packages at a client device, comprising:
receiving a request for a determination of the status from a user
at the client device at an interface application executing on the client
device separately from a system management server client
application executing on the client device; and
performing operations as follows responsive to the request
without further input from the user[;]
identifying a plurality of system management server packages
that have been advertised to the client device and determining an
installation status of the plurality of system management server
packages
by querying log files generated by the system
management server client application using the interface
application,
wherein querying log files includes using a query to
extract data from contents of the log files reflecting the
installation status of respective ones of the plurality of system
management server packages and
wherein the query is generated without user input;
generating a graphical user interface that lists the plurality of
system management server packages and provides a visual indication
of the installation status of the plurality of system management server
packages; and
displaying the graphical user interface to the user on a display
of the client device.
2
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8-10, 13, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cain et al.
(US 2006/0080656 Al), Rosenblatt et al. (US 2004/0199514 Al), and Curtis
(US 2003/0212899 Al). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4--7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cain, Rosenblatt,
Curtis, and Baluja et al. (US 2006/0122976 Al). 2
3. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cain, Rosenblatt, Curtis, and
Balsamo et al (US 2002/0099806 Al). 3
1 As to this rejection, separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 8-10,
13, 1 7, and 18. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein. Although claim 20 was listed in this rejection
(Final Act. 3, and App. Br. 4), claim 20 has been cancelled (App. Br. 13).
2 As to this rejection, separate patentability is not argued for claims 4--7 and
14. Rather, Appellants address these claims only by referencing the
arguments for their "independent claims" (App. Br. 7). Thus, the rejection
of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate
decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 As to this rejection, separate patentability is not argued for claim 21.
Rather, Appellants address this claim only by referencing the arguments for
its "independent claim" (App. Br. 7). Thus, the rejection of this claim turns
on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, this claim is
not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
Appellants ; Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Office Action acknowledges that Cain fails to disclose
"querying log files generated by the system management server
client application using the interface application," but alleges
that Rosenblatt provides the missing teachings. (Final Action,
page 5) .... In particular, the Final Action alleges that the user
performed drag and drop function referenced in paragraph 45 of
Rosenblatt corresponds to the querying of log files recited in
the pending independent claims as it "is an obvious indication
that querying is taking place". (Final Action, page 5).
Independent Claim[ 1 ], however, state[ s] that the query used in
querying the log files is generated without user input.
Moreover, the Curtis reference fails to provide the missing
teachings with respect to querying the log files using a query
generated without user input as recited in independent
Claim[ 1].
In response to this analysis, the Final Action alleges that
the drag and drop function is not the only querying means
disclosed in Rosenblatt as the drag and drop fi.mction is an
operational operation. (Final Action, pages 2, 3, and 5). The
Final Action alleges that Rosenblatt discloses a list of shared
files/folders between client systems that is initially populated
and that this population of the shared files/folders constitutes
querying of a log file. (Final Action, pages 2, 3, and 5).
Appellants respectfully disagree that an initial population of a
list of folders/files corresponds to the "querying log files"
recitation of independent Claim[ 1]. Independent Claim[ 1]
recite[ s] "querying log files generated by the system
management server client application," which means the log
files have already been generated to allow a query to be
performed on the log files. Thus, an initial population of a
file/folder list refers to creating or generating the file/folder list
not performing a query on a file/folder list that has already been
generated. Moreover, independent Claim[ 1] recite[ s] "querying
log files includes using a query to extract data from contents of
4
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
the log tiles reflecting a status of respective ones of the plurality
of system management server packages." Appellants can find
no description in Rosenblatt of the initial population of the list
of shared files/folders involving the extraction of data from the
contents of the files/folders.
App. Br. 6, emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
As to the Rosenblatt and Curtis references, we agree with the
Appellants' above recited contentions that these two references fail to
disclose the following requirements of the claim:
(a) "querying log files;"
(b) "the query used in querying the log files is generated without
user input;"
( c) "log files generated by the system management server client
application;" and
( d) "querying log files includes using a query to extract data from
contents of the log files reflecting a status of respective ones
of the plurality of system management server packages."
App. Br. 6. However, as to the Appellants' assertion that "the Office Action
acknowledges that Cain fails to disclose 'querying log files generated by the
system management server client application using the interface application'
... (Final Action, page 5)," we disagree. We find no such statement by the
Examiner. Rather, the Examiner states:
5
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
While Cain et al. disclose automatically advertised
download and installation of SMS packages to a client and
status indication of installation, they do not explicitly disclose
providing an elaborate graphical user interface invoked by the
client.
Final Act. 5, emphasis added.
Although we conclude that Rosenblatt and Curtis fail to disclose
limitations (a}-(d), we find that Cain teaches or renders obvious each of
these limitations as to an elaborate graphical user interface (Update
Inventory Tool) invoked by an administrator at the server (Cain i-f 158)
where update status reports (i.e., log files), showing the status of security
updates (Cain Fig. 3 and i-fi-1157-160) and Microsoft Office updates (Cain
Fig. 4 and i-fi-1161-163), are generated using an SQL query (Cain i-f 389).
That an additional query might be run against the log file would have been
obvious as Cain teaches that a query can be modified. Cain i-f 389. That
status reporting might be automated (i.e., without user input) would have
been obvious as Cain teaches automatically running the updates inventory
tool. Cain i-f 159. Also, Cain teaches a system management server client
application executing on the client device in the form of "client computers
compare what has been installed against the contents of the latest Office
Update Database (invcif.exe) file." Cain i-f 162.
While we do find Cain teaches (a) an interface application executing
on the server device separately from a system management server client
application, and (b) displaying the graphical user interface to the user on a
display of the server device, we do not find (a) and (b) as to a client device.
As stated by the Examiner, Cain does not explicitly disclose an elaborate
graphical user interface invoked by the client. See Final Act. 5. Therefore,
6
Appeal2015-000278
Application 11/524, 105
we leave it to the Examiner to determine if it would have been obvious to
move known server device functionality to a client device.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 21 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 21
are reversed.
REVERSED
7