Ex Parte Cooper

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2007

10176151 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STEVE COOPER
____________________

Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,1511
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: May 24, 2007
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAY P. LUCAS, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 2. Claims 4 and 5 stand allowed. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Application filed June 21, 2002.
Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

2
Appellant’s invention relates to a power controller installed on each of
a plurality of blades in a blade style server computer. Each power controller
determines whether the blade it is on can go to a higher power mode without
a command from a centralized controller (Specification 2:10-13).

Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for controlling the number of blade server
computers that can operate at high power mode, said system
comprising:

at least two computers,

each computer having a CPU and a power
controller,

each power controller having means for receiving
power signals from another computer,

said power signals informing each power
controller how many other computers are operating in high
power mode,

each power controller having means for sending a
power status to other computers,

each power controller having means for switching
each computer to high power mode.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Crippen US 6,688,965 B1 February 10, 2004
Chu US 6,725,385 B1 April 20, 2004

Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

3
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
obvious over Crippen in view of Chu.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious, in that Chu does not teach a “high power mode” as claimed,
and that neither reference teaches a means for switching each computer (of a
plurality) to high power mode (Br. 5:20-24). The Examiner contends that
since Chu discloses two power modes, one of the two can be fairly construed
as a high power mode (Answer 5:20-23); further, Chu’s teaching of
switching components (such as disk drives) to a high power mode can be
extended to Appellant’s claimed switching of computers to high power
mode (Answer 5:3-12).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2

2 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

4
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is whether Appellant has
shown that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, because no reference of record teaches at least two blade server
computers, each with a power controller having means for switching its
associated computer to high power mode.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant invented a system for controlling the number of blade
server computers that can operate in high power mode (Br. 3:9-10).
2. Appellant states that modern CPUs have the ability to dynamically
switch between a higher and a lower operating frequency. In Appellant’s
“high power mode,” a computer’s CPU runs at a higher operating frequency
(i.e., clock speed), at which the CPU can perform more tasks per unit time.
Running at a higher operating frequency requires more power and produces
more heat. This can damage computer components, so it is desirable to have
components operate in high power mode only when necessary
(Specification 4:8-12).
3. Appellant’s system includes at least two computers (“server
blades”). Each server blade has its own CPU and on-board power controller
(Specification 5:4-5).
4. Each server blade receives a power signal from each other server
blade, telling the controller whether the other blades in the server are
operating at high or “low” power mode (Specification 5:16-18).
5. The power controller can determine how many other server blades
are operating in high power mode (Specification 5:16 - 6:4).
Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

5
6. Crippen discloses a blade server system including a plurality of
server blades (fourteen, in Crippen’s exemplary embodiment, see Fig. 3)
connected to and in communication with a pair of management modules
MM1, MM2 (col. 4, ll. 33-54).
7. One management module assumes the active management role,
while the other is reserved as a standby module (col. 5, ll. 18-21).
8. Each of the server blades of Crippen is in communication with, and
controlled by, both management modules MM1 and MM2 (col. 4, ll. 33-54).
9. Management modules can send alerts to a remote console to
indicate changes in status, such as removal or insertion of a blade (col. 5,
ll. 2-5). Management modules also provide access to “major chassis
subsystems” such as power (col. 5, ll. 5-8). The Examiner interprets this
section of Crippen to meet the claim element “each power controller having
means for receiving power signals from another computer”
(Answer 3:19-25).
10. The Examiner concedes that Crippen does not teach a power
controller having means for switching each computer to high power mode
(Answer 5:3-4).
11. Chu teaches a computer system in which hard disk drives or other
peripherals may be switched between a first and a second mode of operation,
in which the first mode consumes more power and the second mode
consumes less power (col. 2, ll. 5-8).
12. In Chu, the lower-power mode, known as “enhanced Standby
power mode,” is entered in response to a command (col. 6, ll. 21-25).
Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

6
Subsequently, the device’s ATA bus activity is monitored and power is
restored if device activity is needed (col. 6, ll. 37-60).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that some
objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial
burden is met does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument
shift to the Appellant. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See
also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thus, the Examiner
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the Examiner’s conclusion.
When claim elements are found in more than one prior art reference,
the fact finder must determine “whether a person of ordinary skill in the art,
possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art,
and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been
led to make the combination recited in the claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

7
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Chu teaches the claimed “high
power mode.” As noted in Finding No. 11, Chu teaches that peripherals can
be run in either a first mode of operation or a second mode of operation, the
first mode consuming more power than the second. Appellant states that
modern CPUs have the ability to dynamically switch between a higher and
lower operating frequency, and that running at a higher frequency requires
more power (Finding No. 2). Therefore, the counterpart of Appellant’s high
power mode is a low(er) power mode. Regardless of whether Chu uses the
phrase “high power mode,” it is fair to construe Chu’s first mode of
operation, which consumes more power, as corresponding to the claimed
“high power mode,” with Chu’s second mode of operation corresponding to
a low power mode.
We disagree, however, with the Examiner’s position that Crippen
alone, or taken together with Chu, teaches three other elements of the
claimed invention.
First, Claim 1 requires “each computer having a CPU and a power
controller.” Appellant discloses a plurality of blade servers, each having its
own associated on-board CPU and power controller (Finding No. 3). We
note that the claim does not require such one-to-one correspondence, merely
that there be a power controller associated, somehow, with each computer.
The next clause of claim 1 requires the power controller to have
“means for receiving power signals from another computer.” In this context,
“another” must mean a computer that this power controller is not associated
with, in contrast to the just-recited computer that “has” this power controller.
Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

8
Our interpretation also means that each power controller receives power
signals from computers whose power they are not controlling.
Crippen does not teach or suggest this limitation. As noted in Finding
Nos. 6 and 7, Crippen’s system contains a large number of server blades
(e.g., fourteen) whose power is controlled by just two management modules,
and only management module is actively engaged. As a result, each of the
power control elements (management modules) of Crippen is associated
with and controls the power of all of the server blades (Finding No. 8).
Consequently, the power controllers of Crippen do not receive any power
signals from computers whose power they are not controlling.
Second, claim 1 further recites that “said power signals [from another
computer] inform each power controller how many other computers are
operating in high power mode.” Because we conclude supra that the power
controllers of Crippen do not receive power signals “from another
computer,” Crippen cannot meet this limitation.
Third, the Examiner admits (Answer 4:10) that Crippen does not teach
“switching each computer to high power mode” (Finding No. 10). Chu
teaches a computer system in which disk drives or other peripheral devices
(col. 7, ll. 9-11) can be switched between first mode and second mode, the
second mode consuming relatively less power (see Finding No. 11). Thus,
neither Crippen nor Chu teaches changing the power mode (i.e., the
operating frequency) of a computer.
The Examiner argues that Chu and Crippen are sufficiently
structurally similar, and contain sufficient common components, that Chu’s
teaching of controlling the power mode of peripheral devices may readily be
Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

9
adapted to the task of controlling the power mode of a computer (Answer
5:7-11). Chu does not specifically disclose the conditions in which a
peripheral device is placed in standby mode, but it is well known in the art to
place a peripheral device in low-power mode when the peripheral device’s
functions are not required. As noted in Finding No. 12, Chu discloses that
the device is restored to full operation when its functions are requested.
Appellant’s invention concerns server blades with the ability to control
themselves, rather than a peripheral device. The decision to place a server
blade in high power mode is not based on the need for the full functionality
of the server blade. On the contrary, the server blade’s core function
(computing “power”) is always required and always on. We therefore
conclude that the person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
found it obvious to modify Crippen’s computers (server blades) to include
control of their own operation in high power mode, given Chu’s suggestion
that computers may be used to control the power mode of peripheral devices.
Because neither Crippen nor Chu teach (1) power controllers having
means for receiving power signals from another computer, (2) said power
signals informing each power controller how many other computers are
operating in high power mode, or (3) that each power controller has means
for switching each computer to high power mode, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for
independent claim 1, or for claim 2 dependent therefrom.

Appeal 2007-1258
Application 10/176,151

10
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2. The
rejection of claims 1 and 2 is reversed.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

PATENT & TRADEMARK SERVICES, INC.
6111 SADDLE HORN DRIVE
FAIRFAX, VA 22030