Ex Parte Midgley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 4, 201411280111 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NICHOLAS J. MIDGLEY and GARY P. NOBLE ____________ Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,1111 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21–27, and 29, which are all of the pending claims. Br. 3, Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 2 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, 10, 19, and 24 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter on appeal, is reproduced below. 1. A method for maintaining a data processing device, the method comprising the steps of: the data processing device identifying a plurality of hardware and software components comprising a current configuration installed on the data processing device; the data processing device generating a hash value for each of the plurality of hardware and software components; the data processing device generating a configuration hash signature from all of the hash values, the configuration hash signature indicating the current configuration of the data processing device; the data processing device communicating the configuration hash signature to a maintenance node server connected to the data processing device, wherein the maintenance node server; verifies the configuration hash signature; uses the configuration hash signature to identify a target hash signature representative of a target configuration to modify the current configuration; uses the configuration hash signature to determine rules to be deployed to build the target configuration on the data processing device; and uses the configuration hash signature to transmit instructions to the data processing device to update to the target configuration. Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 3 Rejections Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21–27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kroening (US 2004/0148601 Al, pub. July 29, 2004), Gunyakti (US 2004/0177354 Al, pub. Sept. 9, 2004), and Parker (US 7,502,374 B1, iss. Mar. 10, 2009). ANALYSIS “Configuration Hash Signature” The method of independent claim 1 includes the step of “generating a hash value for each of the plurality of hardware and software components,” and the further step of “generating a configuration hash signature from all of the hash values, the configuration hash signature indicating the current configuration of the data processing device.” Br., Claims App. Appellants assert that independent claims 8, 10, 19, and 24 contain similar limitations. Br. 12. Because Appellants argue claims 1, 8, 10, 19, and 24 together, we confine our discussion of this claim limitation to claim 1, which we select as representative. The Examiner finds Kroening teaches the step of generating a hash value for each of the plurality of hardware and software components. Ans. 5, citing Kroening¶ 9 and Fig. 2B. The Examiner also finds that Gunyakti teaches a configuration hash signature that indicates the current configuration of the data processing device. Ans. 5–6, citing Gunyakti ¶ 37 and claim 1. The Examiner further finds that Parker teaches generating a configuration hash signature from all of the hash values. Ans. 6, citing Parker claim 5. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate the configuration hash signature taught by Gunyakti, and the Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 4 concept of generating a hash signature from all available hash values as taught by Parker, into the system of Kroening. See Ans. 6. Appellants assert that the Examiner erred because the proposed modifications would render Gunyakti unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and would also change the principle of operation of Gunyakti. Br. 11, citing MPEP §§ 2143.01(V) and (VI). In particular, Appellants argue that the system of Gunyakti is designed to create a compact (i.e., small) second hash value by excluding some of the first hash values from the computation of the second hash value. Br. 11. Appellants reason that computing a second hash value (which the Examiner finds to be a configuration hash signature) from all—rather than just some—of the first hash values would defeat the purpose of Gunyakti, and change the principle of operation of Gunyakti. See id. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Kroening is the primary reference relied on by the Examiner. The Examiner’s rejection is based on a determination that it would have been obvious to incorporate specific teachings from Gunyakti and Parker into the overall system of Kroening. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection because it misconstrues, and does not address the substance of, the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants do not offer any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that the proposed modifications would change principle of operation, or render unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the modified Kroening system that is the basis of the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants also assert that the Examiner erred in finding that Parker teaches generating a configuration hash signature from all of the hash values because Parker “teaches merely that the hash values of each processing cycle Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 5 are XORed for an entire data packet.” Br. 12. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Gunyakti—and not Parker—as teaching the use of multiple hash values to generate a configuration signature that indicates the current configuration of a data processing device. The Examiner merely relies on Parker as teaching that such a configuration signature can be generated from all—rather than just some—of the underlying hash values. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection because it misconstrues, and does not address the substance of, the Examiner’s rejection. “Rule Set” The Examiner finds that Kroening teaches comparing a hash signature to existing hash signature keys to obtain a matching target configuration that may be transferred to a target computer. Ans. 5, citing Kroening ¶¶ 9–10. The Examiner finds that this comparison corresponds to the “rules” of independent claim 1 and the “rule set” of independent claims 10 and 19.2 Ans. 5, 9–10. Appellants argue claims 1, 10, and 19 together with respect to this claim limitation. See Br. 12. Thus, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. Appellants cite Figure 3 and paragraph 34 of the Specification to argue that the claimed “rule set” cannot merely determine “that the registered configuration and the target configuration match; indeed, if this were so, there would [be] no need for separate and different rule sets for 2 Claim 1 requires “rules,” not a “rule set.” However, both Appellants and the Examiner treat the “rules” required by claim 1 as being synonymous with the “rule set” of claims 10 and 19. See Br. 12; Ans. 5, 8–9. Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 6 different registered and target configurations as shown in Fig. 3.” Appeal Br. 12–13. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claims are not read into the claims unless the Patentee either acted as a lexicographer by “imbu[ing] the claim terms with a particular meaning,” or “disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Figure 3 and ¶ 34 of Appellants’ Specification merely describe a preferred embodiment of the invention. These materials do not contain lexicographic definitions of the claim terms “rules” or “rule set,” and do not contain any disavowals or disclaimers of claim scope. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection. “Error Hash Signature” The Examiner finds that Kroening discloses a system where a software configuration key of a component list is compared with a software configuration key of a storage device, and a new software image is generated if these keys do not match. See Ans. 7, citing Kroening ¶¶ 9–10. The Examiner finds that this comparison corresponds to the following limitation of independent claim 8: “determining an error hash signature of an error condition and initiating one or more diagnostics to rectify the error condition . . . .” See id. Appellants argue claims 8, 10, 19, and 29 together with respect to this claim limitation. See Br. 13. Thus, we confine our discussion to claim 8, which we select as representative. Appellants cite Figure 3 and paragraph 40 of the Specification to argue that “determining an error has signature of an error condition” requires Appeal 2012-007730 Application 11/280,111 7 more than just determining that two hash values do not match, and that “initiating one or more diagnostics to rectify the error condition” requires more than just generating a new software image. Br. 13. However, Figure 3 and paragraph 40 of the Specification merely describe a preferred embodiment of the invention. These materials do not contain lexicographic definitions of the claim terms “determining an error hash signature” or “initiating one or more diagnostics,” and do not contain any disavowals or disclaimers of claim scope. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection. * * * For the above reasons, we are not persuaded by any of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, 10, 19, and 24. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments with respect to dependent claims 7, 12, 16, 21–23, 25–27, and 29. Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19, 21–27, and 29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation