Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11790672 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111790,672 04/26/2007
22879 7590 03/02/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SamJ. Lee
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.
82231295 1976
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, ZIA UL A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAM J. LEE and SHEHZAAD B. BIDIW ALA
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23, and25. Claims 6, 16, and24have
been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2003/0233646 Al; Dec. 18,
2003) in view of Zhang et al. ("A Modeling Perspective of Image Based
Installation" Dell White Paper, Mar. 2000).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "computing devices, and
more particularly, to capturing and deploying an operating system in a
computer environment." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 1 is directed to a
method; independent claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer
readable medium storing computer-executable instructions; and independent
claim 21 is directed to a system. App. Br. 11, 13, and 15.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for copying an operating system of a source
computer to at least one target computer for execution by the at
least one target computer, said source computer comprising a
first storage device in which the operating system is stored and a
second storage device, the method comprising:
storing on said first storage device a file corresponding to
and containing one or more settings of the operating system;
dismounting the operating system in said source computer;
removing from said first storage device selected operating
system settings stored in connection with the operating system;
copying from said first storage device to said second
storage device an image of said operating system and the
corresponding file; and
2
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672
deploying from said second storage device of said source
computer to the at least one target computer said operating
system image and said corresponding file.
ANALYSIS
vVe have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief: we agree with the Examiner that a11 the pending claims are
unpatentable over the cited combination of references. Vve adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set fmih in the rejection from which this appeal is
taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appellants' Appeal
Brief vVe provide the following explanation to highlight and address
specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23. and 25
A .. ppellants argue Cohen and Zhang do not teach or suggest
"dismounting the operating system in said source computer," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants contend Zhang's "shut[ting]
down the normal operating system" does not teach or suggest the claimed
"dismounting the operating system." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3; see Zhang
pg. 8.
This argument is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim. During examination of a patent application,
pending clams are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We look to the specification to see if it provides a
3
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672
definition of claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation. In re
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As
applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction
during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant. Id.
The Examiner concludes the claimed "dismounting" includes Zhang' s
"shut[ting] down the normal operating system on the source computer,"
which results in "the operating system stays isolated, and is prevented from
accessing and/or writing to the storage device" and thereby is "under a
dismount operation." Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner. While
Appellants argue the claimed "dismounting" results in "the dismounted
operating system is running entirely in RAM" and "has not been shut down,"
we agree with the Examiner that the specification provides merely an
example of a "dismount operation." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3; see Spec.
i-f 38; Ans. 3--4. Appellants have provided no limiting definition of a
dismount operation, and Appellants' exemplary embodiment is merely a
non-limiting example. Therefore, Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence that dismounting an operating system does not include shutting
down a normal operating system.
Appellants further argue Cohen and Zhang do not teach or suggest
"removing from said first storage device selected operating system settings
stored in connection with the operating system," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants content Zhang's "source system ... had a
network identity. . . [that] might have been removed during the process of
freezing or buttoning-up the system for capture" does not teach or suggest
the deleting from the source computer storage device selected operating
system settings. Id ..
4
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672
The Examiner finds Zhang teaches "selected registry settings which
includes network identity ... is removed/ deleted from intermediate file
during freezing (shutting down) the normal operating system and capturing
the operating system image for deployment," and new images are given new
identities and duplicate IP addresses are avoided which would require
removing, changing, replacing, or deleting an old identity. Ans. 5-6. We
agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Zhang describes:
The source system at some point had a network identity. The
identity might have been removed during the process of freezing
or "buttoning-up" the system for capture. So the intermediate
master file might or might not still have a network identity,
depending on the details of the deployment system. In any case,
the deployed copies of the source system must not be allowed to
speak on the network with their old identities. On IP networks,
for instance, this would result in "duplicate IP address" errors.
Zhang, pg. 12 (emphasis added).
In other words, Zhang' s network identity based on deployment system
details teaches the claimed "selected operating system settings stored in
connection with the operating system," and Zhang's removal of the network
identity teaches the claimed "removing" of these operating system settings
"from said first storage device." Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence that removing selected operating system settings does not include
removing a network identity based on deployment system details.
A .. ccordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claims 11 and 21, \vhich are
commensurate in scope with claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent
claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, and 25.
5
Appeal2014-004763
Application 11/790,672
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-23, and 25 are affirmed.
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
6