Ex Parte Aldereguia et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2012

10777508 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ALFREDO ALDEREGUIA, RALPH MURRAY BEGUN, and
GRACE ANN RICHTER

________________

Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V. MORGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a scalable data processing that includes
scalability logic to connect the data processing system to a second data
processing system to form a scaled system (Abstract).
Exemplary Claim
1. A scalable data processing system, including:
a first set of central processing units;
a first system memory accessible to the first set of processors;
scalability logic to connect the data processing system to a
second data processing system, having a second set of
processors and a second system memory, to form a scaled
system;
a set of scalability ports connected to the scalability logic to
receive scalability cables connecting the first system to the
second system; and
system management to cause each of the system’s scalability
ports to issue an identifiable signal and further configured to
detect the reception of an identifiable signal, sent by another
system, by any of the scalability ports and to report the
reception of the signal to a system management of the second
system to determine which ports of the two systems are
connected by the cable.
(Emphases added).
Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508

3
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8 – 10, and 15 – 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Leigh (US 2003/0158940 A1) (Ans.
3 – 6).1
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Leigh discloses a data processing
system that includes scalability logic to connect the data processing system
to a second data processing system to form a scaled system and a set of
scalability ports connected to the scalability logic to receive scalability
cables connecting the first system to the second system, as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Leigh, which is directed to a method for
integrated load balancing among peer servers, discloses all of the recitations
of claim 1 (Ans. 3 – 4). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing
that Leigh does not disclose scalability logic (App. Br. 7), a scaled system
(id.), a data processing system (App. Br. 8), and scalability cables and ports
(App. Br. 10) as claimed.
Appellants argue that “Leigh’s load balancing with ILBs [integrated
load balancers] does not disclose scalability logic connecting one data
processing system to a second data processing system . . . . [L]oad balancing

1 Claims 3 – 7, 11 – 14, and 18 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leigh and other references (Ans. 7 – 11). However,
Appellants do not argue these claims separately with specificity (see App.
Br. 16 – 19).
Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508

4
as disclosed in Leigh simply has nothing to do with scalability logic for
connections among systems” (App. Br. 7). However, the Examiner properly
construed scalability logic as including the load balancing algorithms of
Leigh (see Ans. 3 (citing Leigh ¶ [0029])). These algorithms allow load to
be shared among systems, based on factors such as a server’s workload
index, network data traffic level, server health, and ILB health (see Leigh ¶
[0029]). The purpose of this sharing is to provide “a low-cost and scalable
method of interconnecting multiple servers” (Leigh ¶ [0006]) (emphasis
added). By enabling multiple servers to interconnect and share load, Leigh’s
load-balancing algorithms provide for scalability, and thus fall within a
broad, but reasonable construction of the claimed “scalability logic.”
Appellants argue that “Leigh does not disclose the ‘data processing
system’ claimed in the present application” (App. Br. 8). Specifically,
Appellants cite to the Specification, page 4, lines 11 – 12, as defining “a
‘data processing system’ as including a Processor Scalability and Cache
control unit which controls access to the scalability ports in the data
processing system” (id.). However, this portion of the Specification does not
define “data processing system,” but merely depicts a non-limiting
embodiment of the claimed invention (see Spec. 4, ll. 8 – 12; see also Spec.
9, ll. 18 – 21). We give claim terms the broadest reasonable meaning in light
of the Specification, but without reading limitations from the Specification
into the claims. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Leigh’s
servers, which have central processing units (CPUs), cache memory, system
memory, and disks, fall within a broad, but reasonable, construction of the
claimed “data processing systems” (see Ans. 3; see also Leigh ¶ [0029]).
Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508

5
Appellants argue that Leigh does not disclose the claimed “scaled
system” because the Specification defines “a ‘scaled system’ as a system in
which two or more symmetric multiprocessor (‘SMP’) systems are
interconnected to form a larger multiprocessor system capable of functioning
under a single operating system image” (App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. p. 4, ll. 4 –
7)). However, the Specification merely states that “a scaled system includes”
such interconnected systems (see Spec. p. 4, l. 5). This is an example of what
a scaled system can include, not a clear definition that excludes other types
of scaled systems. Appellants further submit that “the terms ‘image,’
‘operating system,’ and ‘operating system image’ do not appear at any point
in Leigh” (App. Br. 7). However, claim 1 is silent as to whether the scaled
system is capable of functioning under a single operating system image.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claimed
invention and, therefore, are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
finding that Leigh’s interconnecting multiple servers fall within a broad, but
reasonable construction of a “scaled system” (see Ans. 3).
Appellants argue that Leigh does not disclose “scalability cables,”
which “are distinct from network cables” (App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. p. 1, ll.
16 – 18)). Appellants further argue that “[b]ecause Leigh does not disclose
scalability cables, Leigh cannot possibly disclose scalability ports that
receive scalability cables” (App. Br. 10). However, neither claim 1 nor the
Specification clearly describes what distinguishes “scalability cables” from
“network cables.” The Specification discloses that network cables connect
systems in a local area network (see Spec. p. 1, ll. 16 – 18). However, Leigh
describes the use of 3-port ILB modules to create load-balancing clusters
(see Leigh ¶ [0040]). That is, Leigh describes the use of ports and
Appeal 2009-010951
Application 10/777,508

6
connections to form a scaled system (i.e., a load-balancing cluster), rather
than to connect to a network (see Leigh ¶ [0040] and Fig. 1). Since these
connections and ports are used for scalability purposes, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Leigh discloses “scalability cables” and “scalability
ports” (see Ans. 3 – 4).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2 – 21, which are not argued separately with specificity
(see App. Br. 13 – 19).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 21.
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

tj