Ex Parte Khavrov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10397143 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/397,143 03/26/2003 Vladimir Khavrov J&R-1047 7792
27346 7590 11/01/2012
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
PATEL, DHAIRYA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte VLADIMIR KHAVROV, ALBRECHT MAYER,
HARRY SIEBERT, and MARTIN TERRY1
________________

Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Infineon Technologies AG is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-20, which stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nouri (US 6,065,053; issued May 16, 2000) in
view of Rajamony (US 6,442,550 B1; issued Aug. 27, 2002; filed Dec. 14,
1999).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992)).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as a control device provided
for observing and/or changing internal states and processes of a controllable
unit from outside the unit. (Abstract). Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A network comprising:
a programmable unit having internal states and processes;
a server; and
at least two clients for carrying out or initiating at least
one function selected from a group consisting of an
observation, a change, and an evaluation of the internal states
and the processes of the programmable unit;
the programmable unit being separate and apart from
each of said at least two clients and connected to said server via
an external interface;
each of said clients configured to carry out or initiate the
at least one function involving the programmable unit by
Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

3
transmitting a request to said server to access said server, said
request specifying the at least one function involving the
programmable unit that will be initiated or carried out; and
said server defining how the programmable unit must be
accessed to carry out or initiate the at least one function
specified by said request, and said server carrying out a
corresponding access to the programmable unit in order to
cause the at least one function to be performed;
wherein said server is configured such that when said
clients transmit a plurality of requests or request lists to said
server in order to carry out or initiate the at least one function,
said server defines a sequence for processing said plurality of
requests or request lists in accordance with defined priorities.

CONTENTIONS2
Based on the arguments for claims 1-4 and 6-20 (See App. Br. 8-13),
we select independent claim 1 as representative. The Examiner finds that
Nouri discloses every recited feature of representative claim 1, expect for
teaching that the server defines a sequence for processing said plurality of
requests, in accordance with defined priorities. (Ans. 5). The Examiner
relies upon the teachings of Rajamony with respect to defining priorities in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue that Rajamony does not provide “a suggestion to
prioritize requests from a system administrator that relate to managing,
diagnosing, and restoring failed service to a server, as taught by Nouri et al.”
(App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted)). Furthermore, Appellants argue that there

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed October 30, 2009; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed January 19, 2010; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed March 16, 2010.
Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

4
is no motivation to combine Rajamony with Nouri because Rajamony
discloses system overload and Nouri does not disclose system overload.
(App. Br. 9).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner failed to properly match the
components of claim 1 to the teachings of Nouri. First, Appellants argue
that the “Examiner has failed to correctly identify both the claimed
programmable unit and the claimed server in the teaching of Nouri.” (App.
Br. 11). Second, Appellants argue that the “Examiner has failed to identify a
teaching in Nouri et al. that satisfies the limitation that the programmable
unit is connected to the server via an external interface.” (Id.). Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner incorrectly equated the remote interface
200 and the server modem 126 taught by Nouri with “the external interface
defined in claims 1 and 13.” (App. Br. 12).

ISSUES
(1) Has the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of Nouri
and Rajamony would have taught or suggested “a sequence for processing
said plurality of requests or request lists in accordance with defined
priorities,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Has the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of Nouri
and Rajamony would have taught or suggested the “programmable unit
being separate and apart from each of said at least two clients and connected
to said server via an external interface,” as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

5
ANALYSIS
Issue (1)
Appellants’ claim 1 requires that the “server defines a sequence for
processing said plurality of requests or request lists in accordance with
defined priorities.” Appellants argue that
prioritizing requests from a business client based on a prior
business relationship between a business and a client of the
business, as taught by Rajamony et al., would not have
provided a suggestion to prioritize requests from a system
administrator that relate to managing, diagnosing, and restoring
failed service to a server, as taught by Nouri et al.
(App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted)).
Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
First, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, as claim 1 does not require prioritizing requests relating to managing,
diagnosing, and restoring, but instead requires only prioritizing “in
accordance with defined priorities.” See claim 1. Second, as found by the
Examiner, Rajamony discloses a server that provides preferential treatment
based on a priority value contained in a request from a client. (Ans. 5).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the server in Rajamony “provides
preferential treatment based on the priority value[,] which means the server
is defining [the] sequence for processing said request.” (Id.).
The Examiner finds that the motivation for combining Rajamony with
Nouri is to “avoid the problem of server overloading, therefore, the
assigning priority to the request, therefore the server can process the request
based on the highest priority to the lowest priority.” (Ans. 5). Appellants
argue that the motivation for combining the teachings of Nouri and
Rajamony is not valid, “because the number of system administrators, who
Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

6
are attempting to manage, diagnose, and restore failed service to the server
of Nouri et al., will not be large enough to overload the server.” (App. Br. 9
(emphasis omitted)). However, Appellants fail to provide any citation to
Nouri to support their arguments. (See id.). As both Nouri and Rajamony
disclose server systems involving receiving requests from clients, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding of a motivation to combine the
references.

Issue (2)
Appellants argue generally that the Examiner has failed to properly
identify in Nouri a server, a programmable unit, and an external interface to
the server, as required by its claim 1. (App. Br. 11-12).
First, Appellants argue that the “Examiner uses the server to satisfy
the claimed server, but then also uses a part of the server to satisfy another
claimed element, namely, the programmable unit.” (App. Br. 11). The
Examiner finds that the “system board 150” disclosed in Nouri teaches
Appellants’ “programmable unit.” The system board 150 is illustrated in
Figure 2 of Nouri as being one component of a larger server system 100 that
can include many servers. Furthermore, in the portions of Nouri cited by the
Examiner, Nouri discloses that the system board 150 is a part of a “self-
contained network of microcontrollers” that “continues to operate and
provides a system administrator with critical system information, regardless
of the operational status of the server 100.” (Nouri, col. 6, ll. 2-13).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding with respect to the
programmable unit disclosed in Nouri.
Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

7
Second, Appellants argue that “the Examiner has failed to identify a
teaching in Nouri et al. that satisfies the limitation that the programmable
unit is connected to the server via an external interface.” (App. Br. 11).
Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the cited portions of Nouri disclose an
external interface that connects the programmable unit to the server. (See
Ans. 3 (citing Nouri, col. 6, ll. 1-12)). More particularly, although not
expressly referenced by the Examiner in the Answer, the portions of Nouri
cited by the Examiner in the rejection disclose a “system interface
microcontroller 106” that provides an external interface between the
“microcontroller network 102” and the “server Operating Software 108.”
Nouri, col. 6, ll. 4-5, 10, 30-31. Furthermore, as clarified by the Examiner in
the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s Answer, the “CPU
(Fig. 2 element 164) and the CPU controller (Fig. 2 element 166, 168) (i.e.
programmable unit) are connected to the server system by the ISA bus (Fig.
2 element 162) and the microcontroller bus (Fig. 2 element 160).” (Ans.
14). Accordingly, the Examiner further finds that the ISA bus 162 and the
microcontroller bus 160 correspond to an external interface to the server.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-20, which are not separately argued.

Appeal 2010-006379
Application 10/397,143

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc