Ex Parte Emerson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2016

12999209 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

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