Ex Parte Liverance et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13193452 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/193,452 07/28/2011
22879 7590 09/22/2016
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fletcher Liverance
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.
82749177 7984
EXAMINER
MIRZA, ADNAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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 FLETCHER LIVERANCE, TIMOTHY J. FREESE, and
WILLIAM C. BREDBENNER
Appeal2015-005838
Application 13/193,452
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and ALEX YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 11-20, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP,
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005838
Application 13/193,452
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
The claims relate to an update service established by a first computing
device. See Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some paragraphing
added:
1. A method for providing software updates to a client
computing device, comprising:
establishing an update service associated with an update
service network address;
responsive to receiving from the client computing device
a broadcast message comprising a port identifier designated for
receiving messages requesting available updates and addressed
from a client computing device network address of the client
computing device, transmitting to the client computing device
network address a response message comprising the update
service network address; and
responsive to receiving from the client computing device
an update request message addressed to the update service
network address, sending to the client computing device network
address information for updating software on the client
computing device.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 10, 2014 ("App. Br.");
Reply Brief filed May 18, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed
March 20, 2015 ("Ans."); the Specification filed July 28, 2011 ("Spec."),
and Final Office Action mailed September 23, 2014 ("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2015-005838
Application 13/193,452
References and Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Xue, et al., (US 2009/0291631 Al; Nov. 26, 2009)
("Xue") and Hu, et al., (US 2006/0069753 Al; Mar. 30, 2006) ("Hu"). Final
Act. 2-5.
ANALYSIS
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellants contend the Xue - Hu combination fails to teach the
"transmitting" element (i.e., "responsive to receiving from the computing
device a broadcast message comprising a port identifier designated for
receiving messages requesting available updates and addressed from a
computing device network address of the computing device, transmitting to
the computing device network address a response message compnsmg the
update service network address") recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellants
argue Xue teaches an adaptation layer to provide commonality between a
distribution layer of a mobile broadcast network and the respective service
layers of first and second services. Id. According to Appellants, Hu teaches
a server-driven, connection-based update process. Id.
The Examiner finds Xue fails to teach transmitting to the client device
network address a response message comprising an update service network
address. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Hu teaches that, in response to a
message transmitted from the server to the client, the client transmits
instructions to the server which stores the instructions in memory. Id. (citing
3
Appeal2015-005838
Application 13/193,452
Hu, i-f 21 ). The Examiner equates the "flow ID," taught by Xue, with the
claimed "network address" and equates Xue' s "Service Transport adaptation
module with the claimed "transmitting element." Ans. 8 (citing Xue, i-f 65).
The Examiner finds the "update network address" and "update software"
changes or adjusts the network address and content of the software,
respectively. Id. at 8-9.
Appellants contend that Hu, as cited by the Examiner ("a client
computer may transmit a sequence of instructions to the server computer in
response to a message transmitted to the client") (Hu, i-f 21 ), teaches a
server-driven process. Reply Br. (citing Hu, i-f 35).3 Appellants argue Ru's
server-driven process is distinct from a client-centric (i.e., "responsive to
receiving from the client computing device a broadcast message comprising
a port identifier") process, as recited in Claim 1. Id. at 5 ("this update
process described in Hu is not 'responsive io receiving from the client
computing device a broadcast message comprising a port identifier"').
The Examiner explicitly finds the "client computer may transmit a
sequence of instructions to the server computer in response to a message
transmitted to the client." Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Whereas the claims
recite that the server responds to the client ("responsive to receiving from
the client computing device"), in contrast, Hu teaches the client responds to
the server. We find the cited art does not teach the limitations of Claim 1.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2 AND 4--7
3 The Reply Brief is not paginated. The citation occurs at page 13 of the
Record file.
4
Appeal2015-005838
Application 13/193,452
Because we find the cited art fails to render Claim 1 obvious, we need
not reach Appellants further arguments for the patentability of claims
dependent therefrom for at least the reason that these claims depend from
and include the elements of allowable independent Claim 1. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v.
Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 8 AND 14
Appellants contend Claims 8 and 14 recite limitations commensurate
in scope with those of Claim 1. App. Br. 10, 11. The Examiner does not
answer this contention.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 9-13 AND 15-20
Because we find the cited art fails to render Claims 8 and 14 obvious,
we need not reach Appellants further arguments for the patentability of
claims dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5