Ex Parte Brey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

11940896 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111940,896 11115/2007 60501 7590 03/08/2016 LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 8601 Ranch Road 2222 Ste. 1-225 AUSTIN, TX 78730 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas M. Brey 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. XRPS920070178US 1 8638 EXAMINER CONNOLLY, MARK A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2116 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS M. BREY, RAYMOND M. CLEMO, BETH F. LOEBACH, and GREGORY J. MCKNIGHT Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,8961 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (see Power of Attorney paper filed January 26, 2015). Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiasson et al. (US 2006/0161794 Al, July 20, 2006) ("Chiasson") and Bodas (US 2005/0138438 Al, June 23, 2005). Final Act. 2. Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiasson, Bodas, and Oh (US 7,069,463 B2, June 27, 2006). Final Act. 4. Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiasson, Bodas, and Mittal (US 5,719,800, Feb. 17, 1998). Final Act. 5. THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention generally relates to data processing, and in particular to managing power consumption of computing devices in a computer equipment rack. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 7 is directed to a system; and independent claim 13 is directed to a computer program product. App. Br. 12, 14, and 15. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for managing computer power consumption in a computer equipment rack, the method comprising: determining, by a power consumption manager within a power distribution unit (PDU), an aggregate power consumption of a plurality of computers in the computer equipment rack, each of the computers being supplied power individually from a shared circuit in the computer equipment rack; 2 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 determining, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, whether the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers exceeds a predetermined maximum threshold; if the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers exceeds the predetermined maximum threshold, selecting, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, a number of computers for throttling in dependence upon priority; throttling-down the selected computers, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, reducing the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers to a level below the predetermined maximum threshold; determining, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, whether the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers is below a predetermined minimum threshold; if the aggregate power consumption is below the predetermined minimum threshold, selecting, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, a number of computers for throttling in dependence upon priority; and throttling-up the selected computers, by the power consumption manager within the PDU, increasing the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers to a level above the predetermined minimum threshold. ANALYSIS \Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible en-or, Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending daims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. \Ne adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from \vhich this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, \Ve provide the 3 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. Appellants contend "the combination of Chiasson and Bodas does not teach or suggest at least the following elements ... 'determining, at the power consumption manager within the PDU, whether the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers is below a predetermined minimum threshold,' 'if the aggregate power consumption is below the predetermined minimum threshold, selecting a number of computers for throttling in dependence upon priority, and 'throttling-up the selected computers, increasing the aggregate power consumption of the plurality of computers to a level above the predetermined minimum threshold."' App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue "Bodas describes a power consumption controller that monitors the power consumption of a single computer - not a plurality of computers." App. Br. 6-7. Appellants further contend "Bodas' power consumption controller is not within a power distribution unit (PDU), as recited in the claims." App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds "Chiasson explicitly teaches monitoring the power drawn by a plurality of servers" and Bodas teaches "the concept of throttling-up based on a determination that a power consumption level was below a low threshold level." Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds "a PDU in Chiasson can be interpreted as comprising both the power supply (or just its determining circuitry) and the power management module 14 as both are needed to perform the ... power control steps for the servers." Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants' contentions fail to take into account what the collective teachings of Chiasson and Bodas would have suggested to one of ordinary 4 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (citations omitted)). This reasoning is applicable here because the Examiner used the combined teachings of Chiasson and Bodas in the rejection of claim 1. As cited by the Examiner, the prior art describes: When a power utilization threshold is exceed in the at least one power supply 16, an alarm signal may be send on signal line 24 to the power management module 14. The power management module 14 may then determine a priority profile for requesting a specific server or servers 20 to begin throttling back power consumption. Chiasson i-f 24 (emphasis added). The process is described starting at block 910 where a current level of power consumption of the system is determined. At block 915, a test is performed to determine if the current level of power consumption is below a low threshold. If it is not, the process is done, as shown in block 930. If the current level of power consumption is below the low threshold, the process flows to block 920 where the power consumption of one or more components in the system may be allowed to increase. The increase in power consumption may be allowed as long as the current level of power consumption of the system is below the high threshold. For one embodiment, the power consumption controller 180 may allow increase in the power consumption of one component in the system one level at a time. Bodas i-f 66 (emphasis added). 5 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 In other words, Chiasson teaches power management, using a power management module, to detect power for multiple servers and then throttling the power consumption down based on priority for the servers; and Bodas teaches power management, using a power consumption controller, to detect power in a system and then throttling the power consumption up. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that determining aggregate power consumption is below a predetermined threshold, and then selecting computers for throttling in dependence upon priority, and throttling-up the selected computer, as recited in claim 1, is not taught or suggested by the combination of Chiasson's threshold-related power consumption management by throttling down multiple servers with Bodas' threshold-related power consumption management by throttling up. Appellants have also not provided persuasive evidence that the claimed power distribution unit that performs the determining, selecting, and throttling-up steps does not provide the same function as Chiasson's power management module and Bodas' s power consumption controller. Appellants further argue "Chiasson expressly declines to throttle up a plurality of computers when power consumption falls below the second threshold," and "[a]ny assertion that the teachings of Bodas can be applied to Chiasson to result in throttling up multiple computers when power consumption falls below a minimum threshold therefore contradicts the actual teaching of Chiasson." App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds "[ n ]owhere in Chiasson does it definitively mention that a throttling-up is prohibited" and "Chiasson is merely silent with regards to how operation occurs once the power consumption falls below the lower second threshold." Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner. 6 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 In essence, Appellants' argument is that Chiasson and Bodas teach away from their combination. To the contrary, both Chiasson and Bodas are directed to the same field of endeavor and to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (power consumption management). Although Chiasson and Bodas teach different methods, we find no conflict in their teachings. Finally, with respect to this "teaching away" argument, we note "[a] reference does not teach away ... if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellants have not shown that either Chiasson or Bodas criticizes, discredits, or discourages investigation into the invention claimed. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of dependent claims 3---6, not separately argued. App. Br. 8, 9, 10. vVith regard to independent claims 7 and 13, Appellants argue that these claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim L App, Br. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, as weH as the rejections of dependent claims 9----12 and 15----18, not separately argued. App. Br. 8, 9, 10. DECISION The reiections of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are affinned. 7 Appeal2014-004774 Application 11/940,896 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1. l 36(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8