Ex Parte Atherton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 201611779627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation