Ex Parte Oates et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2014

11685407 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN OATES,
KEVIN HANES,
MARC JARVIS, and
JEFFERSON RALEY
__________

Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen Oates, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. §
134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for optimizing deployment of an information
handling system comprising
loading a superset of content onto the information
handling system being deployed;
storing a deployment front end on the information
handling system being deployed;
generating a manifest representing content to be loaded
onto the information handling system;
upon booting the information handling system being
deployed, executing the deployment front end, the deployment
front end gathering data to drive deployment of the information
handling system;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Jan. 7, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 1,
2011).
Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

3
installing a specific subset of the content from the
superset of content based upon the manifest, the installing using
the deployment front end;
pre-staging the superset of content on the information
handling system being deployed,
and wherein
the superset of content comprises multiple customer
images, multiple customer applications, data migration tools,
and installation automation tools.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Klemba
Chen

US 7,055,040 B2
US 2006/0129769 A1
May 30, 2006
Jun. 15, 2006

The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Klemba.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Klemba?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

4
ANALYSIS
The Appellant argued claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15 as a group
(Br. 3). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 4-6 9-11, 14, and 15 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner’s position is that Chen expressly discloses all the
claims steps but for
installing a specific subset of the content from the
superset of content based upon the manifest, the installing using
the deployment front end;
pre-staging the superset of content on the information
handling system being deployed,
and wherein
the superset of content comprises multiple customer
images, multiple customer applications, data migration tools,
and installation automation tools.
Claim 1. Klemba is relied upon as disclosing these limitations. According to
the Examiner,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of applicant's invention to modify Chen's use of a
replacement server deployment system with Klemba's use of
deploying a system image on another system in order to
simplify the management and to uniquely and securely load
software to an individual computer.
Ans. 9. See also Br. 3-5.
The Appellants challenge the rejection, arguing that
while Chen discloses data migration from a legacy information
handling system to a replacement information handling system,
neither Chen or Klemba disclose or suggest a method for
optimizing deployment of an information handling system,
much less such a method which includes loading a superset of
Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

5
content onto the information handling system being deployed
and loading a specific subset of the content from the superset of
content based upon the manifest, much less pre-staging the
superset of content on the information handling system being
deployed, much less where the superset of content comprises
multiple customer images, multiple customer applications, data
migration tools, and installation automation tools, all as
required by claim 1 and as substantially required by claims 6
and 11.
Br. 5. Emphasis original.
The argument is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection.
The specific disclosures the Examiner relied upon as evidence to
support his finding that the claimed subject matter at issue was known in the
prior art have not been addressed. The Appellants do little more than point
out what the claim recites (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv)), effectively
overlooking the Examiner’s extensive fact-finding. See the Fin. Rej. at 6-10
(mailed Aug. 20, 2010).
Be that as it may, Chen discloses a replacement information handling
system that will be deployed to the customer and provides a method “for
loading a superset of content onto the information handling system being
deployed” (claim 1, emphasis added) as reasonably broadly construed.
The claim phrase “information handling system being deployed” is
not expressly defined in the Specification and the Appellants do not point us
to any. Accordingly, we give it the broadest reasonable interpretation that
one of ordinary skill in the art would give it in light of the Specification; that
is, an information handling system that will be deployed. The Appellants
agree that Chen discloses data migrated from a legacy information handling
system to a replacement information handling system. Br. 5. Chen’s
Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

6
replacement information handling system is an information handling system
that will be deployed to the customer. This is so because as Chen (paras.
[0014]-[0015]) explains, an organization’s data is migrated from an old
legacy system to a new replacement system by the system’s manufacturer
and “[a]fter data migration, the newly manufactured systems are returned to
the organization to replace the existing systems complete with the migrated
data.” Id. at [0015]. Thus, Chen’s replacement information handling system
is an “information system being deployed” as that phrase is reasonably
broadly construed.
Furthermore, Chen’s data migration amounts to a “loading” of
information onto the deployed system because the information is installed on
the new system. See at least Fig. 2 and para. [0016]. The information Chen
loads - e.g., templates, applications, and scripts (para. [0009]) - is a “superset
of content” as that claim phrase is reasonably broadly construed. Therefore,
Chen not only discloses a replacement information handling system that will
be deployed to the customer but also provides a method “for loading a
superset of content onto the information handling system being deployed”
(claim 1, emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellants’ argument is not persuasive
as to error in the rejection.
The Appellants also argue that
a deployment front end as disclosed and claimed in the present
application is patentably distinct over a data migration
application as disclosed by Chen. A data migration application
is used to aid in the smooth processing of multiple data

Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

7
migrations (see e.g., Chen ¶ 0017) whereas a deployment front
end is stored on the information handling system being
deployed and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a
specific subset of content on the information handling system.
Br. 6.
The distinction the Appellants are making for the claimed
“deployment front end” over Chen’s “data migration application” is that the
claimed “deployment front end” is “stored on the information handling
system being deployed and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a
specific subset of content on the information handling system.” Br. 6.
But the Examiner is equating the Data Migration Application 22 on
the Data Migration Handling System Server 18 (see Fig. 1) to the the
claimed “deployment front end.” See Ans. 5 (“Data migration application is
the front end that gathers the data to deploy.”) And that data migration
application 22 which is run by the replacement information handling system
in order to load/gather information from the legacy information handling
system to the replacement information handling system (see para. [0017])
appears to be “stored on the information handling system being deployed
and is for gathering data to drive deployment of a specific subset of content
on the information handling system” (Id. at 6).
The Appellants’ criticize Chen’s “data migration application [because
it] is used to aid in the smooth processing of multiple data migrations.” Id. In
fact, it is not Chen’s “data migration application” 22 which is used for that
purpose but Chen’s “[d]ata migration monitor application 30” (see para.
[0017]).

Appeal 2011-011530
Application 11/685,407

8
Because the Appellants focused on Chen’s “data migration monitor
application 30” rather than the “data migration application 22” the Examiner
relied upon in rejecting the claimed subject matter, the Appellants’ argument
is unpersuasive as to error in the rejection.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 15
is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh