Ex Parte Chheda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10684768 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________

Ex parte SACHIN NAVIN CHHEDA,
RICARDO ESPINOZA-IBARRA,
and ROBERT DOBBS
____________

Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768
Technology Center 2100
___________

Decided:1 June 30, 2009
__________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 9-10, and 12-13. Claims 19-
28 are indicated to be allowed by the Examiner. Claims 3-8, 11, and 14-18
are indicated to be objected to by the Examiner. The Appellants appeal
therefrom the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to an electronic power
switching mechanism disposed on a server card that could be inserted into a
server chassis. The electronic power switching mechanism is configured to
cause the three power states of the server card (Spec. 2).

Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A server comprising:
a server card that is removably insertable into a server
chassis and comprising at least one of a blade server and a brick
server; and
an electronic switching mechanism disposed on the
server card and configured to cause three power states of the
server card including:
a fully-operational state in which a system power
of the server card is enabled and a standby power of the
server card is enabled;
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

3
a standby state in which the system power of the
server card is disabled and the standby power of the
server card is enabled; and
a shutdown state in which the system power of the
server card is disabled and the standby power of the
server card is disabled.

References
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence.

Humpherys US 6,226,699 B1 May 1, 2001
(filed June. 25, 1998)
Hensley US 6,613,984 B1 Sep. 2, 2003
(filed Apr. 29, 2002)
Wierzbicki US 6,789,206 B1 Sep. 7, 2004
(filed Sep. 29, 2000)
Dunstan US 2004/0103345 A1 May 27, 2004
(filed Nov. 21, 2002)
Patel US 7,126,821 B2 Oct. 24, 2006
(Nov. 16, 2004)

Rejections

Claims 1-2 and 12-13 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Humpherys in view of Wierzbicki.
Claims 9-10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Humpherys in view of Wierzbicki and Dunstan.

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Humpherys and Wierzbicki teaches or would have suggested
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

4
“a server card that is removably insertable into a server chassis and
comprising at least one of a blade server and a brick server; and an
electronic switching mechanism disposed on the server card and configured
to cause three power states of the server card” as recited in claim 1?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Prima Facie Case of Unpatentability
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appellants have the
opportunity on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Claim Interpretation
During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577
(Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

5
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” Id. (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “Construing claims broadly during
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Id.

Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “[w]hat matters is the
objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In our analysis infra, we rely on the following Findings of Fact (FF)
that are supported by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The Background section of Appellants’ Specification provides the
description of a “blade server”:
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

6
The next generation of high density computing introduced
blade servers. In the blade server design, a chassis about the size of a
single rack server holds a number of blade servers that are slidably
inserted into the chassis. Each blade server is a card that carries basic
server components such as central processing unit and memory. The
chassis includes components common to all servers, such as power,
cooling units, input/output circuitry, so that each blade server need not
carry these bulkier components. With blade servers, a single blade
chassis can carry as much computing power as would have been taken
up by a six foot high set of rack servers.
(Spec. 1, ll. 13-21).
2. Appellants submit three references in Appendix regarding blade
server technology (App. Br. 35, Evidence Appendix). One article mentions
the height of a blade server and shared cooling systems:
By comparison, the conventional approach for rack-mounted servers
involves only one server per chassis. A chassis cannot be smaller than
one vertical rack unit (1U, or about 1.75 inches high). This limits you
to 42 to 48 severs in a standard seven-foot rack. A typical blade
chassis is much higher than 1U, but several can still be stacked in a
rack, allowing upwards of 300 servers per rack, depending on the
vendor and configuration.

(Lamont Wood, The Blade Server Debate, Cutting Edge Server Farms (June
01, 2002) available at http://www.ddj.com/architect/184411655) (emphasis
added).

Patel
3. Patel discloses “[a] new generation of such blades has a thickness of
only 1U which corresponds to 1.75 inches or 4.445 cm.” (Col. 1, ll. 24-26).
Patel further discloses that “[s]uch a 1U server blade has advantage that it
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

7
uses only minimum space” (col. 2, ll. 37-38) and that “the ventilated casing
100 includes a high speed axial fan 110” (col. 2, ll. 46-46; Figs 1A and 1B).

Wierzbicki
4. Wierzbicki discloses that a server card (compute element 11) having a
height ranged from 1-U to 4-U can be slid into a rack chassis (rack console
31) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 5, l. 57 to col. 6, l. 26). Wierzbicki also discloses that
the server card has a fan assembly 51 disposed in the chassis 13 (col. 7, ll. 6-
7).
5. Wierzbicki still further discloses that “power button 53 is freely
programmable so as to enable backlight 55 to provide backlighting of
varying colors (i.e., green, red and/or amber colored light) at varying
frequencies (i.e., solid light, 1 Hz blinking light, etc.),” (col. 7, ll. 35-39,
emphasis added) and “in this application, the primary function of backlight
55 is to provide means for indicating the particular power and operational
state of compute element 11 in a manner required by industry promulgated,
advanced configuration and power interface (ACPI) specification
guidelines” (col. 7, ll. 43-48, emphasis added).
6. Wierzbicki also discloses that front panel circuit board 83 is
connected to an element controller 91 and “[e]lement controller 91 is easily
user programmable and primarily functions to control the power state of
compute element 11, to control backlight 55 and display 57 of power button
53” (col. 9, l. 62 to col. 10, l. 1, emphasis added).
7. Wierzbicki also discloses that “element controller 91 can be
programmed to enable compute element 11 to support industry promulgated
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

8
operating system power management features and user interface control
panel specification guidelines” (col. 10, ll. 6-9, emphasis added).
8. Wierzbicki also discloses that “compute element 11 is capable of
operating at a working power state, a sleeping power state, a hibernate
power state, a soft off power state and a full off power state” (col. 10, ll. 10-
12, emphasis added; Fig. 9).
9. Detailed Description section of Appellants’ Specification provides
that
[p]ower management module 203 controls power events for server
card 12, such as enabling and disabling of system power to server card
12. Power management module 203 comprises operating system 62
and optionally operates according to the Advanced Configuration
Power Interface (ACPI) specification (represented by module 64),
which cooperates to ensure proper software and hardware
coordination during power state changes.
(Spec. 7, ll. 22-27, emphasis added).

Humpherys
10. Humpherys discloses that “[t]he server management board 55 allows
remote console operation of the server 10 . . . . [T]he server management
board 55 has a battery backup power supply (not shown) to allow its
continued operation in the event the server 10 loses power.” (Col. 3, ll. 14-
19).
Humpherys further discloses that
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

9
[t]o operate independently of the server 10, the server management
board 55 isolates the microprocessor 80 from the PCI connector 70 in
response to a loss of voltage from the server 10. Again, this allows
remote control and administration of the server 10 even if the server
10 loses power or ceases to operate properly.
(Col. 4, ll. 55-61, emphasis added).

V. ANALYSIS
From our review of the Examiner’s stated rejections, we find the
Examiner’s showing sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we look to Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the
proffered prima facie case.

Section 103 rejection of claims 1-2 and 12-13
With respect to claims 1, Appellants contend that neither Humpherys
nor Wierzbicki teaches a server card comprising at least one of a blade
server and a brick server (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend that
Wierzbicki’s computer element 11 is a rack server with the size 1U, 2U or
4U (id.). Appellants still further contend that Wierzbicki’s computer
element 11 contains bulkier components, such as fan assemblies 51.
Appellants contend that Wierzbicki’s computer element 11 is therefore a
conventional rack server rather than a blade server that has shared fans (id.
at 10).
The Examiner maintains that Appellants’ definition of a blade server
is unduly narrow and overly limiting regarding shared fans in the blade
server. The Examiner cites Hensley and Patel to support his interpretation
that Wierzbicki’s computing element 11 would be a blade server. (Ans. 6-7).
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

10
We agree with the Examiner with respect to the interpretation of the
blade server. First, we find that Appellants’ Specification provides no
express definition for the blade server, only a general description of the
blade server (FF 1). Second, the height of a server, such as 1U or 2U, is not
a deciding factor in determining whether or not the server is a blade server.
Appellants do not provide any evidence regarding the height definition of a
blade server (FF 2-3). Third, we find that in the references cited by both
Appellants and the Examiner, there is no consistent definition with regard to
the shared fans on the blade server (FF 1-3). This inconsistency identifies
that there is no concrete definition of the blade server which we could
recognize. As such, it is our reasoned view that the Examiner is entitled to
give the argued limitation its broadest yet reasonable interpretation. Finally,
we find that Wierzbicki’s computer element 11 with height of 1U can be slid
into a rack console (FF 4), which constitutes a server card comprising a
blade server under the broadest but reasonable interpretation of the argued
limitations.
Appellants also contend that Humpherys does not act to control the
power of the server because Humpherys is directed to a bus isolation circuit
for the loss of power or other faults of the server, which provides
supplemental power to the remote server management board independent of
the power state of the server. Appellants further contend that Humpherys
fails to teach an electronic mechanism causing three different power states of
a server card comprising one of a blade sever or brick server. (App. Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 5).
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

11
The Examiner maintains that “Humpherys discloses a server with a
mechanism on a card that controls the power state of the card. This
mechanism (150, 155) in the disclosed server (10) was relied upon in the
rejection to meet the claim limitation” (Ans. 6), and “controlling power
states of the server is not part of the claimed invention and thus does not
constitute a pertinent argument.” (id.).
We disagree with the Examiner’s argument with respect to the server
card and controlling the power states of a server. Appellants clearly recite in
claim 1 that “a server card . . . comprising at least one of a blade server and a
brick server” (App. Br. 23). Thus, it is clear that controlling the power states
of a server card is indeed controlling the power states of the server
comprised in/on the server card. We further find that Humpherys discloses
that a server management board 55 operates independently of the server and
has a battery backup that can automatically be activated when the server lost
power (FF 10). Hence, we find that Humpherys does not teach controlling
different power states of a server card/server.
Appellants still further contend that Wierzbicki does not disclose an
electronic switching mechanism. In particular, the Appellants contend that
“the Wierzbicki Patent fails to disclose an electronic switching mechanism
controlling power states (fully operational, standby, and shutdown) in which
a system power and a standby power are enabled, and disabled, respectively,
in the respective power states” (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner agrees with Appellants’ contention, but maintains that
“Humpherys is used to disclose that limitation.” (Ans. 7). We disagree with
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

12
the Examiner. As already noted, Humpherys does not disclose controlling
power states of a server (FF 10).
However, while we disagree with the Examiner’s expressed findings,
we find that Wierzbicki discloses an electronic switching mechanism
comprising a programmable power button 53 (FF 5) and a programmable
element controller 91, which are interrelated to control the power states of
computer element 11, i.e., the server card (FF 6). Furthermore, we find that
the arrangement of power states in Wierzbicki complies with advanced
configuration and power interface (ACPI) specification guidelines (FF 5, 7)
and the power states of the server in Wierzbicki controlled by the electronic
switching mechanism include a working power state (a fully-operational
state), a sleeping power state (a standby power state), and a full off power
state (a shut down state) (FF 8). Moreover, we find that Appellants disclose
that the arrangement of the power states in the instant invention is also in
accordance with ACPI specification guidelines (FF 9). Thus, Wierzbicki’s
arrangement of power states includes the claimed limitations regarding the
arrangement of power states because both Wierzbicki and Appellants
arrange the power states in accordance with ACPI. Finally, giving the claim
its broadest, yet reasonable interpretation, it is our reasoned conclusion that
Wierzbicki, taken alone, teaches all limitations as required by the
independent claim 1 because Wierzbicki teaches a server card comprising a
blade server, all three different power states and the same power
arrangements according to ACPI, as that of the instant invention.
Because Wierzbicki, taken alone, teaches all limitations of the
independent claim 1, we conclude that the combination of Wierzbicki and
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

13
Humpherys teaches all the limitations set forth in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we need not reach Appellants’ contention that the Examiner
failed to articulate a convincing rationale for combining Humpherys and
Wierzbicki. We conclude that the combined teachings of the two references
render the claimed invention obvious.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we find Appellants have not
shown the Examiner erred in determining that the cited prior art discloses “a
server card that is removably insertable into a server chassis and comprising
at least one of a blade server and a brick server; and an electronic switching
mechanism disposed on the server card and configured to cause three power
states of the server card” as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Humpherys and
Wierzbicki under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2 and 12 depend from the
independent claim 1 and fall therewith for the same reasons.
With respect to independent claim 13, it recites substantially the same
limitations of independent claim 1, except requiring that the server card
comprises at least one of a blade server and a brick server (App. Br. 27), and
Appellants set forth similar arguments as argued with respect to independent
claim 1. Since we did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive with
respect to independent claim 1, we similarly find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s initial showing of obviousness with
respect to independent claim 13. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Humpherys and Wierzbicki under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

14
Section 103 rejection of claims 9-10
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Appellants further contend that
Dunstan fails to cure the deficiencies of the combination of Humpherys and
Wierzbicki regarding independent claim 1, thus, the combination of
Humpherys, Wierzbicki, and Dunstan fails to teach the claimed limitations
of dependent claims 9 and 10. (App. Br. 21). Appellants rely upon the
arguments for patentability advanced with respect to independent claim 1.
Since we did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive with respect to
independent claim 1, we similarly find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive
of error in the Examiner’s initial showing of obviousness with respect to
dependent claims 9 and 10.

VI. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred finding that the proffered obviousness
rejection teaches or would have suggested “a server card that is removably
insertable into a server chassis and comprising at least one of a blade server
and a brick server; and an electronic switching mechanism disposed on the
server card and configured to cause three power states of the server card” as
recited in claim 1. We also conclude that Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in his initial showing of the obviousness rejection with
respect to claim 13.

Appeal 2009-002104
Application 10/684,768

15
VII. DECISION
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 12-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400