Ex Parte Brey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2014

12121198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS M. BREY, NICKOLAS J. GRUENDLER, RICHARD
E. HARPER, WILLIAM J. PIAZZA and LISA F. SPAINHOWER
____________

Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to mapping power domains in
a data center. See generally Spec. 2, lines 8–23. Representative claim 1
recites:

1 Appellants identify as the real party in interest International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

2
1. A method of mapping power domains in a data center,
the data center comprising one or more power consuming
computing devices, the computing devices managed by a
management module, each power domain in the data center
comprising one or more power service modules located in an
electrical path connecting one or more of the computing
devices to a power source, each power service module
associated with a power line communications controller,
establishing a unique domain identification for each
electrical path connecting one or more of the computing
devices to a power source including:
injecting into the electrical path, by each power line
communications controller in the electrical path, an
identification of the power service module associated with
the power line communications controller, and
creating a unique domain identification in dependence upon
the injected identifications of the power service modules;
receiving, by the management module from the computing
devices, the unique domain identifications; and
maintaining, by the management module, a map associating
the unique domain identifications of the computing devices.

REFERENCES
Egan et al. US 2005/0086544 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Brech et al. US 2009/0217073 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
(filed Feb. 22, 2008)
Langgood et al. US 2009/0282274 A1 Nov. 12, 2009
(filed May 9, 2008)

Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Egan et al (hereinafter “Egan”). Ans. 5–7.
2. Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Brech et al. (hereinafter “Brech”). Ans. 11–14.
3. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Langgood et al. (hereinafter “Langgood”).
Ans. 8–10.
4. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 stand provisionally rejected
on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 18 of co-pending
Application 12/121,253.2 Ans. 14, 15. Claims 19 and 20, which were also
rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting,
have been canceled. App. Br. 2.
ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we discuss the appeal of the
rejections under § 102 by reference to claim 1. Has the Examiner erred by
finding that Egan, Brech, and Langgood, each individually, disclose
“establishing a unique domain identification for each electrical path
connecting one or more of the computing devices to a power source”?

2 Appellants fail to identify the related appeal of co-pending Application
12/121,253 (Appeal 2012-004389), which we decide concurrently with this
Decision. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

4
ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1–18.
Anticipation by Egan
Egan generally relates to identifying connections of uninterruptible
power supplies (“UPS”) to system resources. Egan ¶ 2. Figure 1B of Egan
depicts UPS 164 between an AC power source and computer server 154. Id.
at ¶ 28, Fig. 1B. UPS 164 injects its individual IP address or other identifier
on to the power line and sends it to server 154. Id. at ¶ 36. The UPS-to-
server information is then automatically stored in memory 151 associated
with a service processor 152, where AC connections are also stored. Id. at
¶¶ 32, 37, Fig. 3.
The Examiner finds the identification of a UPS in the path between
the power source (i.e., AC 1) and the computing device (i.e., server 154) “is
necessarily a unique identification of the unique electrical output path.”
Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds the unique listing of devices in an
electrical path, as depicted in Figure 3, of AC power lines, UPS device, and
server, is a unique identification. Id.
We are not persuaded of error.
Appellants contend the UPS identifier in Egan “identifies a universal
power supply – not an electrical path connecting one or more of the
computing devices to a power source.” App. Br. 6. However, Appellants do
not cite evidence or further explain why the UPS identifier does not also
identify an electrical path. As with the Specification, which identifies as the
“unique domain identification,” a concatenated list of identifiers for power
Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

5
service modules in the electrical path between a power source and a
computing device (Spec. 10, lines 13–14, Fig. 1), so, too, does Egan disclose
an identifier of a power service module (i.e., UPS 1) in the electrical path
between a power source (i.e., AC 1) and a computing device (i.e., Server 1).
That Egan has only a single power service module in the electrical path (as
opposed to multiple power service modules) is of no consequence because
claim 1 does not require that there be more than one power service module
in the electrical path (“one or more power service modules located in an
electrical path connecting one or more of the computing devices to a power
source,” claim 1) (emphasis added).
In addition, Appellants’ contention does not persuasively address the
Examiner’s finding that the unique listing of devices in an electrical path, as
depicted in Figure 3, of an AC power line, UPS device, and server, is a
unique identification.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Egan of
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13, which were not
argued separately (see App. Br. 5, 6); and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,
9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, which were not argued separately (see id.).

Anticipation by Brech
Brech generally relates to determining electrical connections in a
power distribution system. See, e.g., Brech ¶ 23. Figure 2 of Brech depicts
electrical connections in a power distribution system, and more particularly,
illustrates how “the interconnections between power sources, other power
equipment, and system resources are identified using communication signals
modulated over the existing power cables.” Id. at ¶ 23. The Examiner finds
Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

6
paragraph 24, describing Figure 2, of Brech discloses the claimed feature.
Ans. 16–17. Paragraph 24 discloses the introduction, by a power component
in an electrical path, of a modulated signal to a power line, the modulated
signal containing unique identification information for the power
component. Brech ¶ 24. The identification information, via the modulated
signal, is passed down the power line to a down line power component. Id.
The down line component adds its unique identification information to the
modulated signal, and this process continues until the last component in the
electrical path is reached – in this case the computing device. Id. The
modulated signal is demodulated to recover the identification information
concatenated by the up line power components to provide a power
distribution path between the power source – in this case, the electrical plug
of the uninterruptable power supply – to the computing device. Id.
Appellants contend Brech discloses only identifying a power distribution
component, but not identifying the electrical path connecting a computing
device to a power source. App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded of error.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Brech provides a list of devices in
the power distribution path between a power source (i.e., an electrical plug)
and a computing device (i.e., a server). Ans. 16, 17; see also Brech ¶¶ 24,
32, Figs. 2, 5. Appellants have not persuaded us the list of devices in the
electrical power distribution path between an electrical plug and a server is
not a unique domain identification of an electrical path between a power
source and a computing device.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection over Brech of
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13, which are not
Appeal 2012-004965
Application 12/121,198

7
argued separately (see App. Br. 7, 8); and (2) dependent claims 2–6, 8–12,
and 14–18, which are not argued separately (see id.)
Anticipation by Langgood
As we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3,
5–9, 11–15, 17, and 18 over Egan, and of claims 1–18 over Brech, we need
not reach the rejection over Langgood. See, e.g., In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Rejection for Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants do not traverse or otherwise address the provisional
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 for non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16,
and 18 of co-pending Application 12/121,253. See generally App. Br. 5–8.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17. Cf. Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI
2010) (precedential).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj