Ex Parte Yang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201613411816 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/411,816 03/05/2012 22879 7590 10/04/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Guoxing Yang 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. 82899560 8030 EXAMINER MUDRICK, TIMOTHY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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 GUOXING YANG, NAZIR H. HAGE, and CHRISTOPHER H. STEWART1 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14 and 17-23. Claims 15 and 16 are canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP-which is a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company with HPQ Holdings, LLC, as its general or managing partner-as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 Invention Appellants disclose the use of a proxy to enable a first application, otherwise constrained from calling a middleware subsystem, to access a basic input/output system (BIOS) or hardware accessible by the middleware subsystem. Abstract. Exemplary Claims Claim 1 and 3, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, are exemplary: 1. A method comprising: executing, in an electronic device, a first application constrained from calling a middleware subsystem, wherein the middleware subsystem is able to access a basic input/output system (BIOS) in the electronic device; and accessing, by the first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy, wherein accessing the middleware subsystem allows the first application to communicate with the BIOS. 3. A method comprising: executing, in an electronic device, a first application constrained from calling a middleware subsystem, wherein the middleware subsystem is able to access at least one feature selected from among a basic input/output system (BIOS) and hardware; and accessing, by the first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy, wherein accessing the middleware subsystem allows the first application to communicate with the at least one feature, wherein accessing the middleware subsystem through the proxy comprises accessing the middleware subsystem through the proxy that has a portion located at a remote server that is separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem. 2 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mickens (US 2013/0060905 Al; published Mar. 7, 2013) and Hertel (US 2009/0288012 Al; published Nov. 19, 2009). Final Act. 2-17. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mickens, Hertel, and Protassov (US 7,941,813 Bl; issued May 10, 2011 ). Final Act. 17-19. The Examiner rejects claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mickens, Hertel, and Kaplan (US 2011/0307955 Al; published Dec. 15, 2011). Final Act. 19-20. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mickens, Hertel, and Ilnicki (US 6,751,677 Bl; issued June 15, 2004). Final Act. 20-21. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mickens and Hertel teaches or suggests "accessing, by the first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy, wherein accessing the middleware subsystem allows the first application to communicate with the BIOS," as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Mickens and Hertel teaches or suggests "accessing the middleware subsystem through the proxy that has a portion located at a remote server that is separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem," as recited in claim 3? 3 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 5-14, 17, and 18 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the teaching in Mickens of a web browser that sends commands, via device protocol translator 148, to remote hardware device server 124 to communicate with hardware devices 130, 132, and 134 teaches or suggests accessing, by the first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy. Final Act. 3 (citing Mickens Fig. la, i-fi-122-23). The Examiner relies on Hertel, which provides access to BIOS version information, to teach or suggest the BIOS being one of the hardware devices that could be accessed. Final Act. 4 (citing Hertel i-f 153). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "[ n ]owhere in Hertel is there any mention or hint of accessing, by a first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that Hertel's BIOS version number is merely used "for developing a fingerprint .... However, using a BIOS version in the fingerprint ... is completely different from a first application accessing a middleware subsystem through a proxy to allow the first application to communicate with the BIOS." App. Br. 6---7. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Mickens, not Hertel, to teach or suggest the use of a proxy to allow an application to communicate with hardware accessible by a middleware subsystem. Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's findings. Appellants further argue that Hertel merely uses BIOS version information, but that "[n]owhere in Hertel is there any teaching or hint that 4 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 the BIOS version information 'must be obtained from the BIOS."' Reply Br. 4. However, Hertel explicitly discloses that the data (including the BIOS version information) used to form a fingerprint of the machine come from examining the user computer, thus, providing an electronic wallet program with access to the machine's hardware and software information. Hertel i-f 153. Thus, Hertel teaches or suggests obtaining the BIOS version information from the BIOS itself (i.e., through an examination of the user computer). See Ans. 6-7. Because the BIOS version information is accessed by an "out of the browser sandbox" providing access to normally unavailable information, Hertel teaches or suggests accessing a BIOS by a program that normally would not have access to the BIOS. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Hertel i-f 153); see also Ans. 4--5. Thus, Hertel teaches or suggests modifying Mickens so that one of the devices accessible through remote hardware device server 124 is the BIOS. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Mickens and Hertel teaches or suggests "accessing, by the first application, the middleware subsystem through a proxy, wherein accessing the middleware subsystem allows the first application to communicate with the BIOS," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 14, which Appellants do not argue separately. Appellants do not provide additional arguments with respect to claims 7, 11, 17, and 18. App. Br. 16. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims. Claims 3, 4, and 19-23 In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner finds the use of remote hardware device server 124, which can be used to access a remote computing system, 5 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 in Mickens, teaches or suggests accessing the middleware subsystem through the proxy that has a portion located at a remote server that is separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Mickens Fig. la, i-fi-122-23). In particular, the Examiner finds that because device protocol translator 148 makes call 136 to remote machine 120 in Mickens (i.e., to the remote hardware device server), that Mickens teaches or suggests a proxy that has a portion located at a remote server. Ans. 9. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "nothing in Mickens ... even remotely suggests or hints that any part of the device protocol translator 148 ... can be included in the remote machine 120." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive because the teachings and suggestions of Mickens directed to accessing remote hardware device server 124 through device protocol translator 148 fall short of teaching a proxy that, as claimed, "is separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem." In particular, claim 3 recites an electronic device that includes both the first application (i.e., that which accesses the middleware subsystem via the proxy) and the middleware subsystem (i.e., that which is accessed by the first application via the proxy). Accord Spec. Fig. 2 (constrained application 102 and middleware subsystem 104 on electronic device 200). Mickens' hardware device server 124 is on remote processing unit 120 rather than on user machine 140 like web application 146. See Mickens Fig. la. Thus, accessing hardware device server 124 (on remote processing unit 120) through device protocol translator 148 does not teach or suggest accessing a middleware subsystem (hardware device server 124) through a 6 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 proxy that has a portion located on a remote server that is separate from the electronic device (i.e., Mickens' user machine 140) that includes the first application and middleware subsystem. Id. Furthermore, Mickens' local hardware device server 156, although on user machine 140, and although accessed through device protocol translator 148 using HTTP protocol 154, is not accessed through a proxy that has a portion located at a remote server (e.g., remote processing unit 120). Id. Rather, device protocol translator 148 is located on user machine 140. Id. Moreover, the device protocol translator 148 communications with remote hardware device server 124 using HTTP protocol 136---which have not been shown to be part of the communications with local hardware device server 156---are insufficient to teach or suggest a portion of the device protocol translator being located at a remote server separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem. The Examiner does not show that Hertel cures this deficiency in Mickens. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not show the combination of Mickens and Hertel teaches or suggests "accessing the middleware subsystem through the proxy that has a portion located at a remote server that is separate from the electronic device that includes the first application and middleware subsystem," as recited in claim 3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3, and claims 4 and 19-23, which contain similar recitations and are similarly rejected. 7 Appeal2015-006608 Application 13/411,816 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-14, 17, and 18. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3, 4, and 19-23. 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. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation