Ex Parte Atherton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2016

11779627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111779,627 07/18/2007
60501 7590 03/29/2016
LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Willliam E. Atherton
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.
XRPS9200701OOUS1 2554
EXAMINER
YU, XIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM E. ATHERTON, RICHARD E. HARPER,
and WILLIAM J. PIAZZA
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "tracking the
physical location of a server in a data center" (Spec. i-f 22).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of tracking the physical location of a server in
a data center, the method comprising:
detecting, by a management module through a one-wire
link between a connector in one of a plurality of cabinet slots of
the data center and a management module of the data center,
insertion of a server into the cabinet slot, the server connected
upon insertion to the one-wire link through the connector in the
cabinet slot, wherein the data center comprises the management
module, the data center further comprises the plurality of
cabinet slots, each cabinet slot having a connector, the data
center further comprises a presence-detection network, the
presence-detection network comprising one-wire links among
the cabinet slots and the management module, the one-wire
links coupled between the connectors in the cabinet slots and
the management module and multiplexed into the management
module according to multiplexer address codes, each one-wire
link associated with a separate multiplexer address code, each
multiplexer address code associated with a separate physical
location in the data center; and,
2
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
determining, by the management module in dependence
upon the one-wire link's multiplexer address code, a physical
location of the server.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Roese
Dalton
US 2008/0155094 Al
US 2008/0270633 Al
June 26, 2008
Oct. 30, 2008
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Dalton and Roese.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Dalton and Roese teaches or would have suggested
"determining, by the management module in dependence upon the one-wire
link's multiplexer address code, a physical location of the server" (claim 1,
emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Roese
Roese discloses a method for location discovery in a data network
(Abstract). User devices 104 are connected to the network through network
entry devices 114, such as multiplexers (Fig. 8; i-fi-f 127-128). Each device
has a connection point 160 corresponding to the physical location of the
3
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
connected device, and location information for all the connection points is
stored (i-fi-f 27, 129). The system determines the connection point through
which a device is connected and finds the stored location information
corresponding to that particular connection point in order to determine the
location of the device in the data network (id.).
IV. ANALYSIS
Although Appellants concede that Roese discloses "each connection
point in a network having location information indicating the location of the
connection point" and "determining the connection point through which a
device is connected and finding the stored information associated with that
connection point," Appellants contend that "Roese does not indicate that the
stored location information is a multiplexed address code" (App. Br. 7). In
particular, Appellants contend that the cited portions of Roese do not teach
or suggest a multiplexer address code (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 11 ).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented and we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below:
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless
4
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)
(citations omitted).
Although Appellants contend "Roese does not indicate that the stored
location information is a multiplexed address code" (App. Br. 7) and
Roese's "actual 'multiplexing' function of the multiplexer is not described
as being utilized in the determination of the location information" (App. Br.
8), these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the recited claim
language. Claim 1 does not require multiplexed address codes as stored
location information or utilizing a multiplexing function of a multiplexer to
determine location information. In fact, as the Examiner notes (Ans. 2),
claim 1 does not even recite a multiplexer. Claim 1 merely requires a
multiplexer address code of the one-wire link, and determining a physical
location of the server in dependence upon the multiplexer address code.
Further, the Specification does not provide a specific definition for the
term "multiplexer address code." The Specification does, however, describe
a multiplexer as "a device that selects one of many inputs to output in a
single channel" and states that "[a]n input to a multiplexer may be selected
as the multiplexer's output by using ... a unique address code" (Spec. 7, 11.
30-31; 8, 11. 1-2) (emphasis added). Thus, we do not find the Examiner's
interpretation of a "multiplexer address code" as encompassing a multiplexer
input or output (Ans. 3--4) overly broad or unreasonable, and adopt that
interpretation accordingly. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that a
multiplexer outputs a distinct code for each input (id.).
Appellants concede that Roese uses a multiplexer as a connection
device (App. Br. 8). Further, Appellants even concede that, "in the cited
5
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
portions of Roese, the multiplexer is used to provide data useful for
determining the location of a device connected to it" (id.). In view of our
broadest reasonable interpretation of "multiplexer address code" above, we
find that Roese, in providing a multiplexer (FF), teaches or at least suggests
a multiplexer address code because the multiplexer provides inputs and
outputs. Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Roese for
multiplexer address codes and the "overall teach[ing] [of] locating the
physical location of devices ... based on the connection information" (Ans.
5).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Dalton also uses a multiplexer as a connection device, as conceded by
Appellants (App. Br. 6). That is, contrary to Appellants' contention that
Dalton does not describe a multiplexer address code (id.), Dalton's
disclosure also includes a multiplexer address code by virtue of the disclosed
multiplexer.
We find no error with the Examiner's finding that "it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Roese's
teachings of determining the physical locations of server blades within a
system through a network entry device such as a multiplexer, within
Dalton's overall teachings of controlling multiple server blades" (Final Act.
5). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dalton and Roese
provides "a multiplexer which would provide the multiplexer address codes
... for determining the physical locations" of the servers (Final Act. 2-3).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, in the combination of Dalton and
6
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
Roese, the multiplexer address codes would provide connection information
and the location of the server would be determined in dependence upon the
connection information, and thus in dependence upon the multiplexer
address code (Ans. 5; Final Act. 6). That is, "each of the connections (inputs
and outputs) would produce a multiplexed address code, which would
further correspond to a physical location within the overall server blade
system" (Final Act. 3).
Although Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that the Examiner is
improperly taking Official Notice (Reply Br. 10-11), we note that the
Examiner did not take Official Notice (Ans. 3--4). Nevertheless, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in relying on Roese for multiplexer
address codes and finding that the combination of Dalton and Roese teaches
and suggests the contested limitations.
We note Appellants advance additional arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 10-11) that were not in the Appeal Brief. However, "[a]ny
bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the
principal brief are waived." Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BP AI 2010) (informative). Cf with Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl.
S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]n issue not raised by an
appellant in its opening brief ... is waived."). Nevertheless, we agree with
the Examiner that, "[b ]y combining Roese with[] Dalton ... the one-wire
links are connected to the multiplexer and each would have its own address
code for location" (Final Act. 3).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 2---6 depending therefrom and falling
therewith (App. Br. 9) over Dalton and Roese. Appellants do not provide
7
Appeal2014-005982
Application 11/779,627
substantive arguments for independent claims 7 and 13 separate from those
of claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10). Thus, claims 7 and 13, claims 8-12 depending
on claim 7, and claims 14--20 depending on claim 13 fall with claim 1 over
Dalton and Roese.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8