Ex Parte Emerson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201612999209 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/999,209 12/15/2010 Theodore F. Emerson 56436 7590 01/29/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82586622 3335 EXAMINER TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01129/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORE F. EMERSON andJEFFERYL. GALLOWAY Appeal2014-002391 Application 12/999,209 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FF'LLA:..Hl\1, ~4dministrati-ve Patent Jitdge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-002391 Application 12/999,209 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 16-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The invention relates to virtualizing a video controller (Spec. 1 :5-7). Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A remote server management controller (RSMC) for a server, compnsmg: a processor; a virtual video controller coupled to the processor, the virtual video controller comprising a subset of video hardware of a dedicated video controller; and a memory controller coupled to the virtual video controller and memory, the memory comprising a frame buffer; wherein the server detects the virtual video controller as a dedicated video controller. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Leigh Maciesowicz US 2003/0088655 Al US 2007 /0276967 Al 2 May 8, 2003 Nov. 29, 2007 Appeal2014-002391 Application 12/999,209 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 16-20, 22-27, 29-32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Leigh. Claims 21, 28, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leigh and Maciesowicz. ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection The Examiner finds Leigh discloses all the limitations of claim 16, including "the virtual video controller comprising a subset of video hardware of a dedicated video controller" (Final Act. 1 2-3). Appellants assert that although Leigh makes reference to a virtual video controller, Leigh does not disclose whether there are hardware elements that are not included in the virtual video controller, and moreover, Leigh states that "[ v ]irtualization of the video controller is beyond the scope of this invention" (App. Br. 13-14; Leigh i-f 61). Thus, Appellants contend, "Leigh fails to disclose a virtual video controller comprising a subset of video hardware of a dedicated video controller," as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 14). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner relies upon Leigh's "local management controller (LMC) 84 that works in concert with the PCI Bus 86, Video controller 90, and Video Random Access Memory (VRAM) 97" as collectively meeting the limitation of a "virtual video controller" (Ans. 4--5). We disagree with this finding because Leigh's video controller 90 alone appears to be a 1 The Final Action dated May 1, 2013. 3 Appeal2014-002391 Application 12/999,209 complete video controller, not a "virtual video controller comprising a subset of video hardware of a dedicated video controller" as claimed. Further, the fact that Leigh mentions "the video subsystem can be virtualized, i.e., the video controller 90 and the VRAM 97 can be in RMM 88, while LMC 84 remains in the server 82," but that "[ v ]irtualization of the video controller is beyond the scope of this invention" (Leigh i-f 61 ), demonstrates that Leigh's video controller 90 is not a virtual video controller as claimed. Additionally, even if we consider Leigh as disclosing the general idea of a virtual video controller, there is no detail in Leigh describing what constitutes a virtual video controller because, as already quoted, Leigh acknowledges it "is beyond the scope of th[ e] invention" (id.). Accordingly, Leigh fails to disclose "a virtual video controller comprising a subset of video hardware of a dedicated video controller," as recited in claim 16. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 16, independent claims 23 and 29 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 17-20, 22, 24--27, 30-32, and 34. The Obviousness Rejection The Examiner has not shown Maciesowicz discloses the limitations missing from Leigh with respect to independent claims 16, 23, and 29, from which claims 21, 28, and 33 depend. Therefore, we also find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 28, and 33. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16- 20, 22-27, 29-32, and 34. 4 Appeal2014-002391 Application 12/999,209 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 28, and 33. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16-34 is reversed. REVERSED msc 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation