Ex Parte Hansen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

12867185 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/867, 185 08/11/2010 Peter Hansen
56436 7590 06/08/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82237862 8223
EXAMINER
ZAMAN, FAISAL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER HANSEN and DARREN CEPULIS 1
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P., a wholly owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company, as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br 3.
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
Invention
Appellants disclose a computer system that "provides for changing the
power states of data-handling devices in response to a detection of a change
in the redundancy associated with energy-transfer devices." Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
selecting a redundancy criterion for energy-transfer devices
installed in a computer system, said redundancy criterion
corresponding to a level of redundancy required to ensure
uninterrupted operation of said computer system in the event of
an energy-transfer device failure;
monitoring said energy-transfer devices to track redundancy
levels associated with said energy-transfer devices;
detecting when said energy-transfer devices fail to meet said
redundancy criterion; and
changing one or more power states of one or more data-
handling devices of said computer system so that said
redundancy criterion is met.
4. A method as recited in Claim 1 wherein said detecting
involves detecting a change of temperature.
5. A method as recited in Claim 2 wherein said criterion
treats said power supplies and said fans independently.
7. A method as recited in Claim 1 wherein said changing a
power state involves increasing a power state of a processor.
10. A method as recited in Claim 1 wherein said criterion is a
function in part of actual power provided by power supplies.
2
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sousa (US 2007/0030613 Al; publ. Feb. 8, 2007)
and Motoyama (US 6,874,092 Bl; iss. Mar. 29, 2005). Final Act. 2--4.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4, 5, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sousa, Motoyama, and Bernat (US
7, 105,950 B2; iss. Sept. 12, 2006). Final Act. 4--9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sousa and
Motoyama teaches or suggests: ( 1) "selecting a redundancy criterion for
energy-transfer devices installed in a computer system, said redundancy
criterion corresponding to a level of redundancy required to ensure
uninterrupted operation of said computer system in the event of an energy-
transfer device failure" and (2) "changing one or more power states of one or
more data-handling devices of said computer system so that said redundancy
criterion is met," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sousa,
Motoyama, and Bernat teaches or suggests "wherein said detecting involves
detecting a change of temperature," as recited in claim 4?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sousa,
Motoyama, and Bernat teaches or suggests "wherein said criterion treats said
power supplies and said fans independently," as recited in claim 5?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Sousa and Motoyama teaches
or suggests "wherein said changing a power state involves increasing a
power state of a processor," as recited in claim 7?
3
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
5. Did the Examiner err in finding Sousa and Motoyama teaches
or suggests "wherein said criterion is a function in part of actual power
provided by power supplies," as recited in claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
Except as detailed below with respect to the Examiner's rejection of
claim 10, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of
facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from
which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments
with respect to the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20, but we
do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Sousa's powering down of
some of devices 12, or powering them in a low power mode, during a
switchover to a backup power supply teaches or suggests selecting a
redundancy criterion for energy-transfer devices installed in a computer
system and changing one or more power states of one or more data-handling
devices of said computer system so that said redundancy criterion is met.
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Sousa Fig. 1, i-fi-128-30, 35). The Examiner finds
Motoyama' s implementation of backup power supplies 210 and 212 to be
able to individually provide sufficient power for storage unit 106 to operate
in the event of a power loss teaches or suggests said redundancy criterion
corresponding to a level of redundancy required to ensure uninterrupted
operation of said computer system in the event of an energy-transfer device
failure. Final Act. 3 (citing Motoyama Fig. 2A, col. 4, 11. 38-50).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "replacing Sousa's
single insufficient standby power supply with two of Motoyama's
4
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
'sutlicient' power supplies .... would only exacerbate the cost problems
that Sousa intends to avoid." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 6-7. Thus,
Appellants argue, Sousa teaches away from the combination of Sousa and
Motoyama. App. Br. 10. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive, however,
because Sousa merely discloses that "due to cost considerations, backup
power supplies typically have less capacity than the primary power
supplies." Sousa i-f 29 (emphasis added). That is, Sousa merely teaches or
suggests that backup power supplies, insufficient to cover fully the loss of
primary power supplies, can be provided. "[T]he prior art's mere disclosure
of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternative because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed ... " In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, we find Appellants' argument that Sousa
teaches away from the combination with Motoyama unpersuasive.
Appellants further contend the Examiner erred because "[i]f ... one
were to replace Sousa's single insufficient power supply with Motoyama's
two sufficient power supplies, there would be no reason to shut down any
devices to avoid overloading a standby power supply." App. Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 8-9. However, the Examiner does not rely on Motoyama for
the replacement of Sousa's standby power supply with Motoyama's backup
power supplies. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3. Rather, the Examiner properly
relies on Motoyama to teach or suggest a redundancy criterion
corresponding to a level of redundancy required to ensure uninterrupted
operation of said computer system in the event of an energy-transfer device
failure. Final Act. 3 (citing Motoyama Fig. 2A, col. 4, 11. 38-50).
5
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
We agree with the Examiner's findings because Motoyama teaches or
suggests that "[b ]ackup power supplies 210 and 212 are ideally implemented
so that either backup power supply 210 or 212 can individually provide
sufficient power for storage unit 106 to operate in the event of a power loss."
Motoyama col. 4, 11. 43--46. That is, Motoyama teaches or suggests
maintaining sufficient redundancy to protect against an energy-transfer
device failure (e.g., the loss of one of backup power supplies 210 or 212).
Thus, the Examiner's findings show it would have been known to an artisan
of ordinary skill that a redundancy criterion can be established to provide
surplus backup power and protect against the failure of an energy-transfer
device.
Appellants also argue that with Sousa "[r]edundancy is not a factor in
determining which or how many devices to shut down. Shutting down the
devices does not cause a redundancy criterion to be met." App. Br. 11.
However, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
modify Sousa using the teachings and suggestions of Motoyama. Final Act.
3; Ans. 3--4. In particular, it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to modify Sousa to maintain excess backup or standby power
supplies-like Motoyama does-for the device or devices in operation. An
artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that maintaining excess
(redundant) backup or standby power in the event of primary power supply
failure would have entailed powering down, or powering in a low power
mode, some of Sousa's devices 12. See Sousa ,-r 2 9.
For the reasons above, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Sousa and Motoyama teaches or suggests: (1) "selecting a
redundancy criterion for energy-transfer devices installed in a computer
6
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
system, said redundancy criterion corresponding to a level of redundancy
required to ensure uninterrupted operation of said computer system in the
event of an energy-transfer device failure" and (2) "changing one or more
power states of one or more data-handling devices of said computer system
so that said redundancy criterion is met," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 3, and 6, 8, and 9, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 12. Similarly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20, which Appellants
unpersuasively argue are patentable for similar reasons. See id. at 14, 16,
Claims 4, 15
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Bemat's health and status
monitoring device 45-and its monitoring of the internal temperature of the
power supply 44 via temperature sensors 49-teaches or suggests wherein
said detecting involves detecting a change of temperature. Final Act. 5
(citing Bernat col. 5, 11. 10-14).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Bernat does not
disclose that 'detecting when said energy-transfer devices fail to meet said
redundancy criterion' involves detecting a change of temperature." App. Br.
15; see also Reply Br. 15. However, the Examiner properly relies on Sousa
for the teaching or suggestion of detecting when energy-transfer devices fail
to meet a redundancy criterion. Final Act. 2 (citing Sousa i-f 29); see also
Ans. 4. Moreover, the Examiner properly relies on Bernat, in combination
with Sousa and Motoyama, to teach or suggest a detected change of
temperature can be used to determine whether an energy-transfer device is
healthy (i.e., whether it still meets a redundancy criterion). Final Act. 5.
7
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sousa,
Motoyama, and Bernat teaches or suggests "wherein said detecting involves
detecting a change of temperature," as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 4, and claim 15, which Appellants argue is patentable for similarly
unpersuasive reasons. App. Br. 17.
Claims 5, 17
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds Bernat' s monitoring of fan
47, the internal temperature of power supply 44, input power, output current,
output voltage, etc., teaches or suggests wherein the criterion of Sousa and
Motoyama treats power supplies and fans independently. Final Act. 5
(citing Bernat col. 5, 11. 10-14); Ans. 6.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Bernat' s method of
turning off power supplies so that other power supplies can operate at more
efficient ranges does not consider the power supply fans independently of
the power supplies themselves." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 16-18.
However, Bemat's health and status monitoring device 45 does monitor both
fan 47 and other information (temperature, input power, output current,
output voltage) of power supply 44. Bernat col. 5, 11. 11-14. We agree with
the Examiner that Bernat, in combination with Sousa and Motoyama, thus
teaches or suggests that either fan information or other information about a
power supply can be used to determine whether an energy-transfer device is
healthy (i.e., whether it still meets a redundancy criterion). Final Act. 5.
Because Bernat teaches or suggests monitoring fans and power supplies
separately, we agree with the Examiner that Bernat teaches or suggests
treating fans and power supplies independently. Id. Therefore, we agree
8
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
with the Examiner that the combination of Sousa, Motoyama, and Bernat
teaches or suggests "wherein said criterion treats said power supplies and
said fans independently," as recited in claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 5. Appellants make similar arguments with respect to the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 17 (App. Br. 17), which
we sustain for these same reasons.
Claims 7, 13
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds Sousa's powering of lower
priority devices, if available power budget capacity allows, teaches or
suggests powering down of some of devices 12, or powering them in a low
power mode, during a switchover to a backup power supply teaches or
suggests wherein said changing a power state involves increasing a power
state of a processor. Final Act. 4 (citing Sousa i-f 33); Ans. 4 (further citing
Sousa i-fi-1 46, 48).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Sousa's paragraph 33
does not teach or suggest the claim 7 increasing limitation (App. Br. 12), but
Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's reliance on
Sousa's paragraphs 46 and 48. Rather, Appellants merely contend that
limitations in claim 1 are not taught or suggested by the prior art and
"[t]herefore, the increases disclosed in Sousa [0046] and [0048] cannot meet
the Claim 7 limitation in light of its reference back to the claimed
redundancy criterion." Reply Br. 13.
As discussed above, we do not find error in the Examiner's reliance
on the combined teachings and suggestions of Sousa and Motoyama to teach
or suggest the disputed recitations of claim 1. Therefore, Appellants'
9
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
arguments with respect to the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 are similarly
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 7. Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 13 are similarly
unpersuasive. App. Br. 16. Therefore, for these same reasons we also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13.
Claim 10
In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner finds Sousa's use of backup
power supply capacity in determining what devices to power teaches or
suggests wherein said criterion is a function in part of actual power
provided by power supplies. Final Act. 4 (citing Sousa i-f 33); Ans. 5 (citing
Sousa i-f 46).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Sousa's criterion is
related only to power-supply capacity, not actual power provided." App.
Br. 13. Appellants argue Sousa's power requirements imply "that the power
being considered is based on nominal capacities rather than actual (e.g.,
measured) power." Reply Br. 14.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. The use of actual
power provided by power supplies relates to, for example, the receipt of
"data from power sensor 29 indicating the actual power consumption by
server 11." Spec. i-f 15 (emphasis added). However, the cited portions of
Sousa merely relate to how to respond in situations such as "the addition of a
power requirement exceed[ing] the total available power" (Sousa i-f 46,
emphasis added) to ensure that "critical or high priority devices 12 that are
to remain powered in the event of a power supply failure and switchover
10
Appeal2014-000254
Application 12/867,185
should, in the aggregate, not exceed the capacity of the backup power
supply" (id. i-f 33, emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Sousa teaches or suggests the use of "the actual
amount of power supplied by the backup power supply." Ans. 5. However,
the Examiner relies on Sousa's teaching that "if it is found that additional
power is available, a particular device may be powered back on." Id.
(emphasis added). Thus, Appellants correctly note that the Examiner
erroneously relies on Sousa's power supply capacity, rather than on actual
power provided by power supplies, to teach or suggest the disputed
recitation.
The Examiner does not rely on Motoyama with respect to the disputed
recitation of claim 10. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show the
combination of Sousa and Motoyama teaches or suggests "wherein said
criterion is a function in part of actual power provided by power supplies,"
as recited in claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10.
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(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11