Ex Parte Giles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13780818 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/780,818
81505
ORACLE
FILING DATE
02/28/2013
7590 11/02/2018
(Oracle formerly d/b/a Sun Microsystems)
8055 East Tufts A venue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas E. Giles
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.
ORA121168-US-NP-l 3349
EXAMINER
STABLES, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
ptomail@mfblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS E. GILES
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, N. WHITNEY WILSON,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-15 of Application 13/780,818
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. (Aug. 18, 2016) 4--15. Appellant1 seeks
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Oracle International Corporation, which is
also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to computer servers. More
particularly, it relates to the management of field replaceable units (PRU s)
mounted within a frame structure such as a rack or cabinet. Spec. ,r 9.
Such units are generally required to be able to accept either an AC
power source (e.g., mains electricity) or a DC power source (e.g., battery
banks). Id. ,r 61. This has generally required systems to have different sets
of equipment for receiving and distributing AC and DC power. Id. The
present application describes a system that "includes a single set of
equipment that is designed to accept an input AC and/or DC power source
and distribute at least one DC voltage to each of a plurality of PRU s
mounted within a computing rack ... regardless of whether the input power
source is AC and/or DC." Id. ,r 62.
Figure 2 of the application is reproduced below.
Figure 2 is "a schematic diagram of a system designed to accept an AC
and/or DC input power supply and distribute redundant DC voltages to each
of a plurality of FRUs mounted within a computing rack." Id. ,r 28.
2
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
In regard to the power supply system of Figure 2, the Specification
teaches the following:
As shown in Figure 2, the system broadly includes an AC to DC
converter or rectifier 504, at least first and second DC PDU s 508,
512 (e.g., rack-mounted PDUs, smart or intelligent PDUs, etc.),
and an electrical bypass mechanism 516 electrically connected
between the rectifier 504 and the first and second DC PDUs 508,
512. The bypass mechanism 516 is configured to deliver a DC
voltage to each of the first and second DC PDUs 508, 512 from
an AC power source (e.g., via the rectifier 504) and/or from a DC
power source as will be discussed below. Stated differently, the
rectifier 504 and bypass mechanism 516 may collectively be
considered a "power conversion apparatus" that is configured to
deliver a DC voltage to each of the first and second DC PDU s
508, 512 regardless of whether a power supply inputted to the
power conversion apparatus includes one or more AC power
sources, one or more DC power sources, or both AC and DC
power sources.
Spec. ,r 63.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A system for delivering direct current (DC) power to
field replaceable units (PRU s) of a computing rack, comprising:
a rectifier comprising:
a plurality of input nodes for receiving a respective
plurality of mains power supplies; and
at least one output node for outputting a DC power
supply; and
an electrical bypass mechanism comprising:
an input node electrically interconnected to the output
node of the rectifier;
a first output node;
a second output node;
3
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
a first conductive path electrically connecting the input
node and the first output node; and
a second conductive path electrically interconnectable
between a) the first input node of the electrical bypass
mechanism or the first conductive path, and b) the second
output node, wherein the first and second output nodes
are configured to output respective DC voltages
irrespective of whether the system receives one or more
mains power sources and/or one or more DC input power
sources.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (reformatted for clarity).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as obvious over Chapel et al. 2 in view of Olesiewicz. 3 Final
Act. 4--10, 12-15.
2. Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
as obvious over Chapel. Id. at 10-12.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 12-14 as
obvious over Chapel in view of Olesiewicz. In support of the rejection, the
Examiner found that Chapel teaches a plurality of input nodes for receiving
a plurality of mains power supplies. Final Act. 5 (citing Chapel ,r 139, 11. 4--
11 ). The Examiner found that Olesiewicz also teaches a plurality of input
2 WO 2009/120880 A2, published Oct. 1, 2009 (citations to United States
counterpart US 2012/0092811 Al, published Apr. 19, 2012) ("Chapel").
3 US 2003/0155815 Al, published Aug. 21, 2003 ("Olesiewicz").
4
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
nodes for receiving a plurality of mains power supplies. Id. at 6 ( citing
Olesiewicz ,r 40, 11. 1--4, Fig. 5).
The Examiner additionally found Chapel does not teach the claimed
electrical bypass system but that Olesiewicz teaches an electrical bypass
system having a first and second output node "wherein the first and second
output nodes are configured to output respective DC voltages irrespective of
whether the system receives one or more mains power sources and/or one or
more DC input power sources." Id. at 6-7.
The Examiner determined that one of skill in the art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of Chapel and Olesiewicz because use of
"the electrical bypass mechanism as taught by Olesiewicz within the system
of Chapel would have constituted an arrangement of old elements with each
performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement." Id. at 7. The Examiner further
found that the combination would have "produce[d] the known and expected
uses and benefits of redundant/backup power distribution to components."
Id. at 8.
Appellant alleges that the rejection is in error on several bases.
Claim 1
With regard to claim 1, Appellant first argues that neither Chapel nor
Olesiewicz teaches a rectifier having a plurality of input nodes for receiving
a plurality of mains power supplies. Appeal Br. 4--8. A portion of Figure 5
of Olesiewicz is reproduced below.
5
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
Figure 5 is described as "a schematic of illustrative circuitry for a multi-feed
multi-positionable PDU [power distribution unit], in accordance with an
embodiment of the invention." Oleswieicz ,r 13.
The Examiner found that "Olesiewicz discloses multiple rectifiers
(Olesiewicz, Figure 5, items 510a, 510d, 510e, and 510h) with each having
multiple inputs (Olesiewicz, Figure 5, input to items 510a, 510d, 510e, and
51 Oh) from a respective plurality of mains power supplies." Answer 3. That
is, the Examiner determined that the two lines into rectifiers 51 Oa and 51 Od
(pictured above) constitute multiple inputs from mains (AC) power supplies.
In response, Appellant argues that "items 51 Oa, 51 Od, 51 Oe, and 51 Oh of
Olesiewicz represent a plurality of rectifiers that receive power from a
respective plurality of external power sources via connectors 520al, 520a2,
520b 1, 520b2 rather than a single rectifier having multiple input nodes for
receiving multiple mains power supplies as required by independent claim
1." Reply Br. 2. This does not squarely rebut the Examiner's finding.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
As a second basis of error, Appellant alleges that the Examiner erred
in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
6
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
combine the teachings of Chapel and Olesiewicz. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
argues that one would not have been motivated to combine the structure of
Olesiewicz so as to achieve "redundant/backup power" because the
configuration of Chapel at issue already provides redundant power
distribution "by way of Power Sources A and B, two PDUs, etc." Id.
In response to this argument, the Examiner determined as follows:
Regarding the motivation to provide redundant/backup power
distribution as being already taught, Examiner notes that the
combination discloses/suggests a more detailed and complete
configuration capable of providing redundant/backup power
distribution and the two references are able to be fully
incorporated with each other to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Answer 11. Appellant has not shown error in this determination.
Appellant additionally argues that the proposed combination would
not yield a predictable result. Appeal Br. 8. In this regard, the Examiner
determines that Appellant has not supplied factual evidence of
unpredictability. Answer 4.
The question of whether there would have been a reasonable
expectation of success is a question of fact. See Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI
Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellant has not
introduced factual evidence regarding reasonable expectation of success.
Appeal Br. 8. An argument made by counsel in a brief does not substitute
for evidence lacking in the record. Estee Lauder, Inc. v. L 'Orea!, S.A., 129
F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As a third basis of error, Appellant argues that the references do not
teach first and second output nodes of an electrical bypass mechanism that
are configured to output respective DC voltages regardless of power source.
Appeal Br. 9.
7
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
Claim 1 requires, in part, that "the first and second output nodes are
configured to output respective DC voltages irrespective of whether the
system receives one or more mains power sources and/or one or more DC
input power sources." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts that
the configurations depicted in Figures 4 and 5 of Olesiewicz are configured
to receive AC power or DC power, but not both types simultaneously. Id. at
9. Appellant cites to Olesiewicz' teaching that "[a]lthough PDU 400 of FIG.
4 is configured for a DC power feed, a corresponding configuration for AC
power may be derived from PDU 400." Olesiewicz ,r 34; see also ,r 39.
Appellant further asserts that "the plurality of AC to DC rectifiers are
not configured to receive an AC input power source and output a DC voltage
to each of the first and second PDUs, and also configured to receive a DC
input power source and output a DC voltage to each of the first and second
PDU s. Instead, they are only configured to receive an AC input power
source and output a DC voltage." Appeal Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner finds that "a diode rectifier as shown in
Olesiewicz is fully capable of accepting either AC or DC and still be
operational. If AC is supplied the AC signal is rectified into a DC output. If
DC is supplied it is passed through and either the same DC signal or a
comparable DC signal is outputted." Answer 5.
Thus, Appellant has not directly rebutted the Examiner's finding
regarding the diode rectifiers of Olesiewicz. Accordingly, Appellant has not
shown reversible error in this regard.
8
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
Claim 2
Appellant additionally argues that the combination of Chapel and
Olesiewicz does not teach the limitations of claim 2. Appeal Br. 9-10.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that "the second
conductive path comprises a removable jumper." Claim 1 defines the
second conductive path as a "path electrically interconnectable between a)
the first input node of the electrical bypass mechanism or the first
conductive path, and b) the second output node."
The Examiner determined that such limitation is taught by Olesiewicz.
Pet. 8 ( citing Olesiewicz ,r 40); Answer 5---6. Olesiewicz teaches, in the
context of Figure 4, that "pins 9 and 10 may be jumpered together and
connected to both ground and a voltage source, and also to a logic circuit
(e.g., a diagnostic module)." Olesiewicz ,r 35. A portion of Figure 4 is
reproduced below.
The excerpt from Figure 4, above, depicts pins 1-10 of connectors 422 and
424. Olesiewicz ,r 35. Olesiewicz further teaches that "as discussed above
9
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
for PDU 400, pins 9 and 10 of connectors 522, 524 may be jumpered to
provide sensing." Id. ,r 40.
The Examiner determined that the "second output node" is connector
424/524. Final Act. 7. Thus, the "second conductive path" terminates at the
connection to connector 424/524. Olesiewicz' teaching as to what may be
jumpered is limited to pins 9 and 10 of the connector structure. The
connector is not part of the "second conductive path." Accordingly,
Olesiewicz does not teach a system where "the second conductive path
comprises a removable jumper" as required by claim 2.
Appellant has shown reversible error in regard to the rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 3
Appellant additionally argues that the rejection of claim 3 is in error.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further requires "a switch disposed along
the second conductive path, wherein actuation of the switch selectively
allows and disallows current flow along the second conductive path."
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner determined that the following
paragraph of Olesiewicz teaches the claimed switch.
As another alternative, a micro switch ( or other electrical or
mechanical switch) may be attached to the PDU, perhaps to an
ejector or removal handle. When removal of the PDU is
initiated, activation of the switch alerts a logic circuit and the
logic circuit may shut down the power supply.
Olesiewicz ,r 45. The Examiner then asserts that "even though the exact
location of the switches are not explicitly disclosed in Olesiewicz, the
known practice of one in the art discloses the limitation of the switch as
10
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
claimed." Answer 6-7. Appellant argues that there is no such "known
practice." Reply Br. 5.
"The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless
the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Here, the Examiner has not shown
any such suggestion. Further, the switch of Olesiewicz appears intended to
power down the entire power distribution unit (PDU) while a switch on the
second conductive path would interrupt only one conductive pathway.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence of record does not support
the Examiner's finding that the switch of Olesiewicz would be expected on
the second conductive pathway.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has shown reversible error in the
rejection of claim 3.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further requires "electrically
interconnecting a plurality of mains power sources to the respective plurality
of input nodes of the rectifier." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appellant
asserts that the cited references fail to teach a rectifier with multiple input
nodes. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that such teaching is absent for the
same reasons set forth with regard to claim 1. Id. at 4--8. As we have not
found such arguments persuasive with regard to claim 1, we similarly
determine that Appellant has failed to show reversible error with regard to
claim 6.
11
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further requires "interrupting
current flow between the first and second conductive paths; and electrically
interconnecting a DC input power source to the second output node or the
second conductive path of the bypass mechanism." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims
App.). The "interrupting" limitation is similar to the "switch" limitation of
claim 3 and the Examiner relies upon the same portion of Olesiewicz in
finding that both such features are taught. Answer 6 (regarding claim 3), 7-
8 (regarding claim 7). In regard to claim 7, the Examiner determined as
follows:
Since there are in Olesiewicz two sources and two outputs to
the PDU, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a switch on
both the first and second conductive paths as to stop the flow of
current in the event that one or both sources need to be isolated.
Therefore, even though the exact location of the switches are
not explicitly disclosed in Olesiewicz, the known practice of
one in the art discloses the limitation of the switch as claimed.
Answer 8. As above, this is an inadequate articulation of a basis to modify
Olesiewicz. It is apparent that there are other positions where a switch may
be positioned with equal logic ( e.g., prior to, in, or subsequent to the
rectifier) to achieve the intent of Olesiewicz.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown reversible error in this regard.
Claims 12-14
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further requires "a bypass
mechanism for receiving the rectified AC power source and/or the DC input
power source, wherein the bypass mechanism electrically interconnects the
rectifier to the first and/or second DC PDUs." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
12
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
The Examiner finds that Chapel fails to teach the claimed bypass but
that the combined teachings of Chapel and Olesiewicz teach or suggest all
limitations of claim 12. Final Act. 12-14. Appellant argues that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Chapel
and Olesiewicz. In support of such assertion, Appellant relies upon the same
arguments presented in regard to the combination of the same references
relied upon as a basis for the rejection of claim 1. Id. We find such
arguments unpersuasive in regard to the rejection of claims 12-14 for the
same reasons articulated above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in this regard.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 15 as obvious over
Chapel. Final Act. 10-12.
Claim 11 is an independent claim to a "setup ... wherein the
apparatus is configured to receive an AC input power source and output a
DC voltage to each of the first and second PDU s, and wherein the apparatus
is configured to receive a DC input power source and output a DC voltage to
each of the first and second PD Us." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Claims
12-15 depend from claim 11. Id. at 17-18. Appellant argues that the
limitation noted above is not taught by the cited references. Rather,
Appellant argues, Olesiewicz teaches rectifiers configured to receive an AC
input and to output a DC voltage. Id. at 12. Appellant made a similar
argument with regard to claim 1.
In response, the Examiner finds that "a diode rectifier (Olesiewicz,
Figure 5, items 51 Oa, 51 Od, 51 Oe, and 51 Oh) can accept either AC or DC and
would still be operational. If AC is supplied the AC signal is rectified into a
DC output. If DC is supplied it is passed through and either the same DC
13
Appeal2017-008512
Application 13/780,818
signal or a comparable DC signal is outputted. This is an inherent property
of a diode used for rectification." Answer 9.
Appellant does not cite to factual evidence contrary to the Examiner's
finding. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown reversible error in this
regard and has not shown a basis for reversal of the rejection of claim 11 or
any claim depending therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 4--6, and 8-15 are affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
14