Ex Parte Bohrer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

09965013 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK JOSEPH BOHRER, BISHOP CHAPMAN BROCK,
ELMOOTAZBELLAH NABIL ELNOZAHY, RAMAKRISHNAN
RAJAMONY, and FREEMAN LEIGH RAWSON III
____________

Appeal 2012-007917
Application 09/965,0131
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Appeal 2012-007917
Application 09/965,013

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, and 21-32, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 16-20, and 33 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to reducing energy
consumption in a server cluster by dynamically adjusting the operating
frequency of selected server-network links. See Spec., 1:7-8.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of operating a data processing network, the
method comprising:
performing an initial link layer operating frequency
negotiation between a server and a switch to which the server is
connected, wherein the initial link layer operating frequency
negotiation establishes an initial total bandwidth capacity of a
network link between the server and the switch at an initial
operating frequency of the network link;
following the initial link layer operating frequency
negotiation, the server communicating network traffic with the
switch over the network link and measuring an effective data
rate of the network traffic communicated between the server
and the switch over the network link; and
responsive to determining by the measuring that the
effective data rate is materially less than the initial total
bandwidth capacity of the network link operating at the initial
operating frequency, performing a subsequent link layer
operating frequency negotiation to establish a decreased total
bandwidth capacity of the network link at a decreased operating
Appeal 2012-007917
Application 09/965,013

3
frequency of the network link, wherein the decreased operating
frequency is closer to the measured effective data rate than the
initial operating frequency.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:

Claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chawla (US 6,876,668 B1, Apr. 5, 2005), Fedyk
(US 7,154,851 B1, Dec. 26, 2006), and Ravi (US 6,292,834 B1, Sep. 18,
2001).

ANALYSIS
Our representative claim, claim 1, recites, inter alia, “establishes an
initial total bandwidth capacity of a network link” (emphasis added).
Independent claims 7 and 21 recite commensurate limitations. Thus, the
scope of each of the independent claims includes a total bandwidth capacity.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Chawla, Fedyk and Ravi teach and/or suggest establishing “an initial total
bandwidth capacity of a network link,” as claimed?

The Examiner found that “Chawla teaches a first bandwidth
reservation request which is considered within the claim scope of an ‘initial
link negotiation.’” (Ans. 17.) The Examiner further found that “Fedyk
teaches a method for dynamically assigning bandwidth at a link layer level.”
(Id.)
Appeal 2012-007917
Application 09/965,013

4
Appellants contend that “the cited teaching of Chawla as combined
with Fedyk and Ravi disclose use of reservation requests, for a particular
session, to reserve a portion of the total available bandwidth on a network
link.” (App. Br. 6.) Appellants further contend that “[t]he combination of
prior art reference is instead concerned with the apportionment of the total
available bandwidth among various communication sessions to achieve a
desired quality of service (QoS).” (Id.) We agree with Appellants.

While we agree with the Examiner that Chawla discloses a bandwidth
reservation request (Ans. 17; see also Chawla, col. 5, ll. 20-27) and Fedyk
assigns bandwidth at a link level (Ans. 17; see also Fedyk col. 2, ll. 14-25),
the Examiner has not shown, and we do not readily find in the cited portions,
where Chawla and/or Fedyk discloses or even suggests an “initial total
bandwidth capacity of a network link,” as claimed. Ravi is not being relied
upon for this limitation (Ans. 6).
As for Chawla, Chawla discloses “a bandwidth reservation processor
. . . which accepts a first bandwidth reservation request indicating a first
amount of bandwidth to reserve for the session of data communication in the
data communications device.” (Chawla, col. 5, ll. 20-27.) In other words,
Chawla merely reserves a portion of the total available bandwidth associated
with a session. Stated differently, Chawla looks at the available bandwidth,
i.e., unused portion, and reserves a portion thereof. However, the Examiner
has not shown where Chawla identifies an initial total bandwidth capacity of
a network link.
Similarly, Fedyk discloses that “the amount of link bandwidth that is
reserved for the sending process represents a portion of a bandwidth pool
Appeal 2012-007917
Application 09/965,013

5
assigned to the sending process.” (Fedyk, col. 2, ll. 63-65.) Like Chawla,
Fedyk also discloses identifying a portion of available bandwidth, instead of
establishing a “total bandwidth capacity of a network link” as claimed. We
find that a “reserved portion” is distinguishable from a “total capacity.”
Thus, based on the record before us and for the reasons set forth with
respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Chawla,
Fedyk, and Ravi disclose or would have suggested each limitation recited in
Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, and 21-32.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Chawla, Fedyk, and Ravi render claims 1, 4-7, 10-15, and 21-32
unpatentable.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

REVERSED

peb