Ex Parte Sylvest et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201412360734 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/360,734 01/27/2009 Mikael Sylvest 42P11850D 6915 45209 7590 09/29/2014 Mission/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER HARRELL, ROBERT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MIKAEL SYLVEST and BENT KUHRE ____________ Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, JASON V. MORGAN, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 4–33. Claims 1–3 and 34–36 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 32, 38.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Intel Corporation. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 2 THE INVENTION The claims relate to providing unified system management of network components. See Abstract. Independent claims 4, 17, and 28, reproduced below, are illustrative of some aspects of the subject matter on appeal: 4. A method, comprising: executing a data security system and a data load balancer in a single hardware module of a hardware unified systems manager (USM) device; executing a data switch and a system manager in the USM device, wherein the system manager controls the data security system, the data load balancer, and the data switch using a management data flow. 17. An apparatus, comprising: a security system to encrypt or decrypt a data flow; a data load balancer communicatively coupled to the security system; a data switch communicatively coupled to the security system and the data load balancer, wherein the communicatively coupled security system, data load balancer, and data switch comprise a unified systems manager (USM) to perform data encryption/decryption, data load balancing, and data switching for multiple data communications systems; and one or more system managers in the USM to send, receive, or implement management instructions that control the combined security system, data load balancer, and data switch. 28. An article of manufacture, comprising: a machine-readable medium comprising content, that when executed cause a machine to: receive data used within an aggregate of separate data communications systems; Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 3 receive, generate, or implement a management instruction; wherein the management instruction is separable from the data; and perform at least one of encrypting/decrypting the data, selecting a server to process the data, or switching the data based on the management instruction. THE REJECTION The following Examiner’s rejection is before us for review: Claims 4–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Suorsa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2002/0156874 A1) (hereinafter, “Suorsa”). OPINION Claims 4–16 In view of Appellants’ contentions, the dispositive issue with respect to claims 4–16 is whether Suorsa discloses the claimed “a data security system and a data load balancer in a single hardware module of a hardware unified systems manager (USM) device.” (See App. Br. 10–14.) We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–16 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions. The Examiner relies on the “firewall” and provisions for Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption in Suorsa to satisfy the “data security system” of claim 4. (Ans. 4, citing Suorsa ¶¶ 30, 36, 50, 51.) The Examiner likewise cites the “Load Balancer” of Suorsa for the like element in claim 4. (Ans. 4, citing Suorsa Fig. 3, element 18; see also ¶ 36.) In Suorsa, these Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 4 devices are installed in equipment racks in a “compartment” in a “data center,” which “comprises one or more buildings that are filled with hundreds or thousands of servers and associated equipment . . . .” (Suorsa ¶¶ 35–36.) Appellants argue that this arrangement cannot satisfy the claim 4 requirement that the data security system and the data load balancer be in a “single hardware module of a hardware unified systems manager (USM) device.” The Examiner, however, construes “single hardware module” and “device” broadly, to encompass separate devices spread out in a room or rooms of a building. The Examiner provides as examples “modular homes” and the “Eniac” computer as satisfying a broad construction of “module” and “device.” (Ans. 7.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s construction. We construe proposed claims using the “broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Specification, in describing one exemplary embodiment of the invention, as depicted in Figure 2, states that, “In this embodiment, the security system and the data load balancer are combined (‘fused’) into a single security system/data load balancer 208 entity, which in this instance is located within a single security load balancing module 204.” (Spec. ¶ 15.) In contrast to this particular illustrated embodiment, the Specification also Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 5 provides that for other embodiments, “elements of the invention could be grouped in any convenient manner . . . .” (Spec. ¶ 26.) This contrast illustrates the scope of the phrase “single hardware module” in claim 4 — it encompasses arrangements such as those depicted in Figure 2, and excludes the more flexible arrangements of the alternative embodiments. We conclude that the Examiner has applied an unreasonably broad construction of “a single hardware module of a hardware unified systems manager (USM) device.” Suorsa does not disclose a “single hardware module” or a “device” as claimed. In view of the forgoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of claim 4. For the same reason, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 5–16, which depend from claim 4. Claims 17 and 18 In contrast to claim 4, and its dependent claims, independent claim 17 does not require any components to be in a “single hardware module” or in a “device.” Appellants nevertheless argue that the Examiner failed to establish anticipation of this claim by Suorsa. (App. Br. 20–21.) With respect to claim 17, and dependent claim 18, we agree with the Examiner’s findings. (See Ans. 11–12.) As discussed above for claim 4, Suorsa discloses a “firewall” and provisions for Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption, which satisfy the “security system to encrypt or decrypt a data flow” of claim 17. (Ans. 12, citing Suorsa ¶¶ 30, 36, 50, 51.) The “Load Balancer” of Suorsa satisfies the like element in claim 17. (Ans. 12, citing Suorsa Fig. 3, element 18; see also ¶ 36.) Also, Suorsa discloses a “data Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 6 switch,” as required by claim 17. (Ans. 12, citing Suorsa Fig. 3, element 20, see also ¶ 36.) Finally, the required communicative coupling and system management of claim 17 are found in the discussions of the backbone, virtual private network, device agents, and provisioning network of Suorsa. (Ans. 12, citing Suorsa ¶¶ 44, 45, 55, 56, see also Fig. 6, elements 30, 31, Fig. 7, ¶¶ 36, 43.) Claim 18 further requires a “dedicated internal VLAN for sending and receiving the management instructions.” We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that this element is disclosed in Suorsa. (Ans. 12, citing Suorsa Fig. 3, element 22, ¶¶ 36, 43, see also ¶ 44.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claims 17 and 18. Claims 19–33 Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to establish that claims 19–33 are anticipated by Suorsa. (App. Br. 22–31.) We have considered the Examiner’s stated basis for the rejections and responses to Appellants’ arguments. (Ans. 5, 12–19.) In particular, claim 19 specifically requires that “the data switch is one of a network switch and an Ethernet switch.” The Examiner made no findings that Suorsa explicitly or implicitly discloses this level of detail, and we are unable to find it in the reference. Claims 20–22 directly or indirectly depend from claim 19, and therefore also require the aforesaid switch details not disclosed in Suorsa. We also note that the Examiner states that the “PCI bus” required by Claim 21 “was known by those in the computer art.” (Ans. Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 7 14.) However, this is not sufficient in the context of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claim 23 requires that “the data flow is separable into a management data flow and a user data flow.” The Examiner cites portions of Suorsa that relate to data flow, but there is no adequate showing or explanation of how Suorsa discloses, explicitly or under principles of inherency, the required separability. Claims 24–27 directly or indirectly depend from claim 23, and therefore also require the aforesaid separability of data flow not disclosed in Suorsa. Independent claim 28, like independent claim 17, does not require any components to be in a “single hardware module” or in a “device.” However, unlike claim 17, claim 28 requires that “the management instruction is separable from the data.” As for the similar limitation of claim 23 discussed above, the Examiner has not shown that this limitation is disclosed on Suorsa. Claims 29–33 directly or indirectly depend from claim 28, and therefore also require the aforesaid separability limitation not disclosed in Suorsa. In sum, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for a finding that any of claims 19–33 are anticipated. We conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Suorsa discloses all of the recited elements for each of claims 19–33. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19– 33. DECISION The rejection of claims 4–16 and 19–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is Appeal 2012-005948 Application 12/360,734 8 REVERSED.2 The rejection of claims 17 and 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-IN-PART tj 2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review at least claims 4–8, 12–13, and 16–20 for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation