Ex Parte 6170067 et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 201490012325 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 90/012,325 05/30/2012 6170067 016295.4365 1207 27299 7590 12/18/2014 GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC 16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE SUITE 201 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 EXAMINER CRAVER, CHARLES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2014 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 ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC PATENT OWNER and APPELLANT ____________ Appeal 2014-009046 Patent 6,170,067 B1 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20–62, 64, 66, 68, 84, and 88 1 of Patent 6,170,067 (hereinafter “’067 Patent”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 306. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This ex parte reexamination proceeding was initiated by a “REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION” filed on May 30, 2012, by a Third-Party Requester. Claim 20 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 20. A failure reporting system in a server system, comprising: means for detecting a system failure condition; means for transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to a system recorder; means for storing the failure information; and means for reporting an occurrence of an event to a central processing unit of the server system. 1 Claims 1–19, 63, 65, 67, 69-83, 85–87, 89, and 90 are not subject to reexamination. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 3 Requester proposes rejections of the claims over the following prior art references: Daniel US 4,823,345 Apr. 18, 1989 Derr US 5,179,695 Jan. 12, 1993 Barrett US 5,323,393 June 21, 1994 Ward US 5,367,670 Nov. 22, 1994 (hereinafter “Compaq ’670”) Compaq, NetWare Server Management, Compaq Computer Corporation (1992) (hereinafter “NetWare”). LANDesk, Server Monitor Module Technical Product Summary, Ver. 2.0, Intel Corporation (1995) (hereinafter “LANDesk”). Appellant/Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s following rejections: Claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Compaq ’670. Claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and NetWare. Claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare. Claims 84 and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk. Claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Derr. Claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr and Compaq ’670. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 4 Claims 47, 48, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk. Claims 49 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr and LANDesk. Claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare. Claims 40–43 and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett and Compaq ’670. Claims 44, 49, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk. Claims 45–48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare. Claims 50–54 and 56–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 as anticipated by Compaq ’670 Claim 20 recites “means for transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to a system recorder.” The Examiner finds the CP arbitration logic 76 shown in Figure 4 of Compaq ’670 describes the claimed “system recorder.” Ans. 11. Appellant contends the system recorder recited in claim 20, when read in light of Appellant’s Specification, requires storing failure information into a system log. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds the claimed “system recorder” encompasses the logic 76 connecting to the processor which originates (or transmits) failure information to memory 70 Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 5 through the logic 76. Ans. 11. In particular, the Examiner finds the claimed “system recorder” does not require storing failure information into a system log as alleged by Appellant. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Although the “means for transmitting failure information related to the failure condition” is written in means plus function format, the equivalent structure therewith does not require the “system recorder” to write such transmitted information into a log. Therefore, limitations from the Specification for the “system recorder” will not be read into the claim. The scope of the “system recorder” is limited to the logic 76 that receives failure information transmitted from the processor. We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 21–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 similar to those presented for claim 20 which we find unpersuasive. Section 103 rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and NetWare Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61. We sustain the rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 6 Section 103 rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46. Instead, Appellant contends the rejection of claims 25, 45, and 46 are a typographical error. App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 4. Because the rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 are pending before us and Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 84 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk Appellant contends the rejection of claim 84 is in error because claim 84 depends from allowed claim 19. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 88 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 88. We sustain the rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 102 rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 as anticipated by Derr Appellant contends Derr does not disclose “transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to the system recorder” as recited in claim 40. Reply Br. 5–6. According to Appellant, the local processor Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 7 console (LPC) 14 of Derr both detects and logs failure information, so no transmission of the failure information occurs. Id. The Examiner finds the LPC of Derr is described as a PS/2 personal computer, which inherently includes a memory controller, or “system recorder,” between the main processor and memory. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the microprocessor of Derr would create failure data then transmit the data to the memory controller to record the data in memory. Id. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. We sustain the rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 as unpatentable over Derr and Compaq ’670 Appellant contends the combination of Derr and Compaq ’670 does not teach “transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to a system recorder” as recited in claim 40. Reply Br. 6–7. The Examiner finds that Compaq ’670 teaches this limitation. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 20 above. We sustain the rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 47 and 48 as unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 47 and 48. We sustain the rejection of claims 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 8 Section 103 rejection of claim 68 as unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown the prior art teaches “a network of interconnected controllers” as recited in claim 68. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner finds page 7 of LANDesk teaches an ASIC, or controller, in operative communication with a plurality of sensors in a network of interconnected controllers. Ans. 7. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that combining the network of interconnected controllers shown on page 7 of LANDesk with the system taught by the combination of Derr and Compaq ’670 would have been beyond the level of skill in the art. We sustain the rejection of claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 49 and 55 as unpatentable over Derr and LANDesk Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 49 and 55. We sustain the rejection of claims 49 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 as unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare Appellant contends the rejection of claims 45 and 46 is either a typographical error or a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 8–9. Because the rejection of claims 45 and 46 are pending before us and Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 9 Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 50–54 and 56–61. We sustain the rejection of claims 50–54 and 56– 61 under 35 U.S.C. §103. Section 103 rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 as unpatentable over Barrett and Compaq ’670 Appellant contends the combination of Barrett and Compaq ’670 does not teach “transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to a system recorder” as recited in claim 40. Reply Br. 9–10. In particular, Appellant contends the CP arbitration logic shown in Figure 4 of Compaq ’670 does not teach the system recorder of claim 40. Id. We find Appellant’s contention unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 20 above. We sustain the rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55 as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 44, 49, and 55. We sustain the rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 10 Section 103 rejection of claims 45–48 as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 45–48. We sustain the rejection of claims 45–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–61 as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 50–54 and 56–61. We sustain the rejection of claims 50–54 and 56– 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Compaq ’670 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56– 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and NetWare is affirmed. The rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is affirmed. The rejection of claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk is reversed. The rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk is affirmed. Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 11 The rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Derr is affirmed. The rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr and Compaq ’670 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 47, 48, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk is affirmed. The rejection of claims 49 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr and LANDesk is affirmed. The rejection of claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is affirmed. The rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett and Compaq ’670 is affirmed. The rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk is affirmed. The rejection of claims 45–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is affirmed. The rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Appeal 2014-009046 Reexamination Control 90/012,325 Patent 6,170,067 B1 12 tj For Appellant/Patent Owner: GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC 16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE SUITE 201 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 For Third Party Requester: BRIAN W. OAKS BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., PATENT DEPT. 98 SAN JACINTO BLVD. SUITE 1500 AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation