Ex Parte Thayer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2006

10177965 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JENNIFER J. THAYER
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 20.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for providing at least a
portion of the service history of a processor-based device.
Claim 11 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
11. A method for providing at least a portion of the service history of a processor-
based device, said method comprising:

receiving information at said processor-based device relating to at least a portion
of the service history of said processor-based device;

Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

automatically entering the received information into a data structure; and

providing from said processor-based device at least one web-based page, said at
least one web-based page comprising at least a portion of the information entered in said
data structure.

The references relied on by the examiner are:
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka) 5,986,835 Nov. 16, 1999
Cogger et al. (Cogger) 6,032,184 Feb. 29, 2000
Barford et al. (Barford) 6,587,960 July 1, 2003
(filed Jan. 11, 2000)

Claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16 and 18 through 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cogger.
Claims 2, 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cogger in view of Tanaka.
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cogger in view of Barford.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16 and 18 through 20, and
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 4, 12 and 17.
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 1, 2, 5 through 7 and 9
through 14) that the limitations of independent claims 1, 11 and 16 read directly on the
teachings of Cogger. A trouble ticket is opened in Cogger for service problems with the
2
Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

processor-based1 customer workstation 10, and the service history of the processor-based
device is received at the processor-based device as a historical record associated with the
trouble ticket (column 4, lines 3 through 8 and 27 through 34; column 14, line 63 through
column 15, line 2; column 17, lines 17 through 20). The software services resident on the
processor-based device permit the maintenance of the trouble ticket and the historical
record (column 5, line 59 through column 6, line 4). Any processor-based device service
data automatically entered into the fields of the trouble ticket is a data structure of the
service history of the processor-based device (column 13, lines 34 through 41). We
additionally agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, pages 10 and 11) that the
processor-based customer workstation provides a web-based page, and that the web-
based page comprises at least a portion of the information entered in the data structure
(column 7, lines 4 through 30). The claims on appeal do not preclude other system
structure (e.g., the web servers 24) (Figure 1) from assisting in the creation of the web-
based page2 at the processor-based customer workstation (brief, pages 7 through 9; reply
brief, page 7). Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 11 and 16 is sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claims 5, 6 and 13 is sustained because we agree
with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 4) that the software that provides the web-
based page at the processor-based customer workstation 10 makes the web-based page
accessible to the customer service platform 20a at a remote location (Figure 4).

1 In appellant’s disclosure, the processor-based device is either the computer 102 or the storage device 104
(Figure 1; paragraphs 0020, 0030, 0031, 0039, 0058).
2 Appellant’s disclosure states that the web-based page is created by either an embedded web server or by a
remotely accessed web server (paragraphs 0033, 0039, 0047, 0055, 0058, 0092).
3
Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

The anticipation rejection of claims 7 through 10 is sustained because appellant
has not provided any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented
for claim 1.
The anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 15 is sustained because appellant has
not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented for
claim 11.
The anticipation rejection of claims 18 through 20 is sustained because appellant
has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from those presented
for claim 16.
The obviousness rejection of claim 2 is sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for this claim apart from those presented for claim
1.
The obviousness rejection of claim 3 is sustained because appellant’s argument
(brief, pages 15 and 16) that the library apparatus in Tanaka lacks “code for providing the
web-based page(s)” is without merit. As indicated supra, the examiner relied on Cogger
for such a teaching.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 17 is sustained because we agree with
the examiner’s finding (answer, page 9) that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to use a remote management card as taught by Barford in Cogger for the
advantage of “remotely testing the system and storing test log data.” Appellant’s
argument (brief, page 17) that “Barford fails to teach or suggest that its remote
management card comprises ‘computer-executable code comprising: code for receiving
information … code for entering the receiving information into a data structure; and code
4
Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

for providing at least one web-based page….’” is without merit because the examiner
relied on Cogger for such teachings.
The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is sustained because appellant has not
presented any patentability arguments for this claim apart from those presented for claim
11.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16 and
18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 2 through 4, 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
5
Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Joseph F. Ruggiero ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Mahshid D. Saadat )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/tdl

6
Appeal No. 2006-1764
Application No. 10/177,965

Hewlett-Packard Company
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
7