Ex Parte Brey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201412121198 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation