Ex Parte Azagury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2014

12062211 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014)

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.
12/062,211 04/03/2008 Alain Azagury IL920030052US2 9881
48150 7590 11/25/2014
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
DENNISON, JERRY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2014 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 ALAIN AZAGURY, MICHAEL RODEH,
JULIAN SATRAN, ILAN SHIMONY,
T. BASIL SMITH, and DHRUV M. DESAL
____________

Appeal 2012-004538
Application 12/062,211
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and JEFFREY S.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004538
Application 12/062,211

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–5, 8–11, 16–21, 40–42, and 44–60, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A computer system, comprising:
a local area network (LAN);
a plurality of input/output (I/O) devices being coupled to the LAN;
and
a plurality of computers without on-board user interface controllers,
each of the plurality of computers being coupled to the LAN and being in
communication with each other and the plurality of I/O devices over the
LAN, each of the plurality of computers comprising:
a system controller;
at least one central processing unit (CPU) being coupled to the
system controller; and
a plurality of on-board I/O device controllers, consisting of:
at least one LAN interface being directly coupled to the LAN
and connected to the system controller; and
an emulation device being directly coupled to the system
controller, the emulation device comprising:
I/O trap logic being directly coupled to the system
controller, the I/O trap logic being configured to intercept and trap a
plurality of outputs sent by the at least one CPU to the plurality of 1/O
devices, to pass a plurality of inputs received from a service processor of the
emulation device to the at least one CPU via the system controller, and to
emulate behavior of the plurality of I/O devices to the at least one CPU and
the system controller; and
the service processor being directly coupled to the I/O
trap logic, the service processor being configured to receive the intercepted
and trapped plurality of outputs from the I/O trap logic, to encapsulate the
received plurality of outputs into outgoing data frames, to transmit the
Appeal 2012-004538
Application 12/062,211

3
outgoing data frames via the at least one LAN interface through the LAN for
delivery to the plurality of I/O devices, to receive incoming data frames via
the at least one LAN interface sent by the plurality of I/O devices through
the LAN, to de-encapsulate the received incoming data frames into the
plurality of inputs, and to convey the plurality of inputs to the I/O trap logic
for emulation to the at least one CPU via the system controller,
wherein the plurality of I/O devices comprises a console having a
keyboard, a mouse, and a video monitor, the console being configured to
permit a user to access the plurality of computers,
wherein each of the plurality of computers comprises a server blade,
and
wherein an emulation mechanism in the computer system is partly
performed by the plurality of computers and is partly performed by the
console.

Prior Art
Autrey US 5,774,695 June 30, 1998
Merrell US 2002/0099797 A1 July 25, 2002
Garnett US 2003/0051166 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Dai US 2005/0049848 A1 Mar. 3, 2005
Morley US 7,761,541 B1 July 20, 2010

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–4, 8, 9, 11, 16–20, 24–27, 29, 31, and 46–60 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dai, Garnett, and Morley.
Claims 5, 10, 15, 21, 40–42, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dai, Garnett, Morley, and Autrey.
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dai, Garnett, Morley, and Merrell.

Appeal 2012-004538
Application 12/062,211

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Dai does not teach “a plurality of computers” as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 1–2. The Examiner finds the
storage device 220 and associated processing capability of Dai (see ¶ 31)
teaches a computer within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 5. The Examiner
further finds duplicating the computer taught by Dai would have been within
the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner
for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. Further, Appellants’
contention is inconsistent with paragraph 38 of Dai, which suggests the
networks of Dai use multiple storage devices, or “a plurality of computers,”
within the scope of claim 1.
Appellants contend the Examiner has not addressed each feature of
each claim, has failed to address which features of the claim are missing
from the primary reference, and uses impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 13–
15; Reply Br. 2, 7. “[A]ll that is required of the [Patent] [O]ffice to meet its
prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the
rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently
articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35
U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We find
that the Examiner has met this burden. The Examiner explains how the cited
portions of Dai, Garnett, and Morley teach the disputed limitations. See
Ans. 5–8, 12–15. Because Appellants have not identified any specific
deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings showing Examiner error, Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365–66 (citing Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
Appeal 2012-004538
Application 12/062,211

5
Appellants contend the combination of Dai, Garnett, and Morley does
not teach “an emulation mechanism in the computer system is partly
performed by the plurality of computers and is partly performed by the
console” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17–20; Reply Br. 3–7. The
Examiner finds Morley teaches emulation partly performed by computers
and partly performed by the console. Ans. 7–8, 14–15. We agree with the
Examiner. Morley teaches an event from a user terminal triggers a message
to the emulator, which then sends an action to a server to retrieve and
display a file on the user terminal. See col. 8, ll. 13–29; Figs. 1 and 4.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner’s finding that the “emulation mechanism” taught by Morley is
“partly performed” by the plurality computers and the console within the
meaning of claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2–5, 8–11, 16–
21, 40–42, and 44–60 which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 8–11, 16–21, 40–42, and
44–60 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED
kis